Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Mature Women

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department has introduced to help mature women get back into the work force.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): Some 2·5 million more women are now in work than in 1983. That encouraging development has been assisted by a wide range of measures undertaken by the Government. They include the deregulation of labour markets, where there has been a 29 per cent. increase in female part-time employment and an almost threefold real-terms increase in Government-funded training programmes, in which women participate extensively.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and understand the Government's appreciation of the need for mature women in the labour market. Will he find time to consider the plight of my constituent, Mrs. Christine Williamson, who, after 25 years at home nursing a severely disabled child is now able to go back into the labour market, but finds herself in a Catch-22 situation? She cannot get a job without training and she cannot get training from the Basildon authorities so as to make herself available for work.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would make a good Adjournment debate.

Mrs. Gorman: That, she tells me, is because the training is given to school leavers.

Mr. Jackson: I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about her constituent's case. On the face of it, my immediate response is that, first, she should contact the local training and enterprise council, which will do its best to help. Secondly, I draw her attention to the career development loan scheme which the Government are funding. That is a helpful and positive scheme which has been developing successfully in recent years.

Mr.Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the occupational apartheid that exists in this country is clearly the result of over-costly and inadequate child care facilities and inflexible and unsatisfactory training provision? Precisely what do the Government intend to do to ensure

that mature women have access to the proper sort of training and the necessary child care to allow them to play their full role in the labour market?

Mr. Jackson: I know that the Labour party is likely to conduct a vendetta against part-time workers, many of whom are women, although when women are asked what they think about part-time work, they reply that they very much appreciate it. We are doing more for training than any previous Government and the Labour party is in no position to lecture us on that subject.

EC Social Charter

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect implementation of the EC social charter would have on unemployment in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): Much of the proposed legislation under the European Commission's social action programme would be very damaging for the United Kingdom. The working time directive alone would impose crippling costs of more than £5 billion on United Kingdom employers. That assessment is confirmed by analysis from business and independent academic organisations.

Mr. Brown: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about the £5 billion cost of implementing that programme, will he give a categorical assurance that there is no way, in any circumstances, in which the present Government—or any Government if they were acting responsibly—could possibly accept the social charter? Would not it be a recipe for disaster in the offshore oil industry, in agriculture and in the hotel and catering industry? Would not it be a disaster for part-time workers, women workers and, indeed, all workers in Britain?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. I assure him that the Government will do all that they can to resist the imposition of such measures on this country. However, I must tell him that it is a draft directive, which has been brought forward by the Commission, utterly spuriously, on grounds of health and safety. As such, it is alleged that it is appropriate to be dealt with on the basis of qualified majority voting. Although we shall do our utmost to resist it, I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that we will be successful in that endeavour.

Ms. Quin: Is the Secretary of State concerned that some workers in Britain get such low wages that they are forced to apply for social security benefit? Does he believe that bad employers should be subsidised by the state in that way? If not, why will not he accept the provisions of the social charter which would attack the problem of low pay?

Mr. Howard: In fact, the social action programme does not contain proposals related to low pay, as the hon. Lady suggested. Family credit is one of the great advances of social legislation. It is one of the ways in which we ensure that, so far as possible, people are better off in work than out of work. If the hon. Lady would read some of the reports from the OECD and other reputable organisations, she would see the extent to which those organisations commend our practices in those matters.

Mr. Irvine: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would do all that he could to resist those directives. In view of his assessment of the damage that they are likely to cause to employment in this country, will he say under which article of the treaty of Rome they have been proposed? If the Government do not have the power of veto and we risk having those directives imposed on us, it is an extremely serious matter.

Mr. Howard: I agree that it is a serious matter. The directives are proposed under article 118A, which is subject to qualified majority voting. I am doing my utmost to persuade my colleagues in the Council of Ministers that it would make no sense, for the European Community as well as this country, if the directives were promulgated in their present form.

Mr. Blair: Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State makes those absurd and fictitious claims about the effect of the social charter, which bears no resemblance to the reality of the proposals, that he dare not admit that the Government are opposed, not just in detail but in principle, to the idea of binding employment standards across the Community? Will he now answer the question of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and confirm that when the Prime Minister goes to Maastricht he will sign no treaty that allows qualified majority voting on any aspect of employment law?

Mr. Howard: What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question was entirely wrong. I refer him to the independent Centre for Economic Policy Research, where Professor Denis Snower recently published a document saying:
Implementing the social charter may be expected to hurt precisely those workers it seeks to help, in addition to raising unemployment and reducing investment".
This year's Employment Institute economic report on the social charter found that
attempts by the Government to foster labour market flexibility … will be undermined by the directives presently contained within the Social Action Programme.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question, the Prime Minister made the Government's position entirely clear in a debate on that matter in the House last week.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Transport and General Workers Union about training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Howard: None, Sir.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Transport and General Workers Union has been wrong on all the major issues facing the country in the past 12 years? It has been wrong on unilateralism and trade union legislation and wrong about the man whom it picked to lead the Labour party. Will not it be wrong yet again on the training and enterprise councils?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is noteworthy that, last July, the TGWU voted to boycott youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils on the day before the Leader of the Opposition went to its conference and said that, in so many ways, that union was the Labour party. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will, in the

House this afternoon, condemn the antediluvian attitudes of the TGWU, which sponsors him, and which turns its back on help for the unemployed made available by the Government.

Mr. Strang: Does not the Secretary of State understand that it is precisely because the TGWU is so committed to effective training and the future expansion of British industry that it is not prepared to give credence to the Government's sham arrangements? When will the Government provide effective training with effective allowances? Do not the Secretary of State's earlier answers make it clear that his vision of Britain in the future is a low-wage economy with the worst employment conditions in Europe?

Mr. Howard: That is an interesting question. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think that training and enterprise councils should be supported. I shall be interested to discover whether that view is shared by the Labour spokesmen who trail round the country assuring training and enterprise councils of their support. Which is the true view of the Labour party? The hon. Gentleman criticised youth training, when almost 90 per cent. of those who complete youth training go on to a job or further education and two thirds of them obtain a qualification. How dare the hon. Gentleman cast a slur on the training arrangements currently in place in this country?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not the problem with the TGWU the fact that the only objective that it regards as important in the House is to support the Labour party? That is why the TGWU will not invite to any of its meetings in the House any Member of Parliament who is not also a Labour party member. That shows how biased the TGWU has become in its policies.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example, which I had not previously come across. It demonstrates that there is no limit to the idiocy of the TGWU in such matters.

Bank Holidays

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of bank holidays in each of the EC countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Only the United Kingdom and Ireland have bank holidays as such. A detailed list is available in the Library, but the number of public holidays varies between seven in the Netherlands and 14 in Spain. Most countries have nine.

Mr. Grocott: The Minister has different figures from the official figures in the Library. Will he confirm that Britain, with eight bank holidays, has fewer national public holidays than any other European Community country? Given that we hear so much from the Government about level playing fields, is not it time that we had a level playing field in employment conditions? Will the Minister introduce in the near future proposals enabling us to have at least as many national holidays as other European countries?

Mr. Forth: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to bribe the electorate with yet another promise. He was incorrect to say that we have fewer national


holidays than any other European country—the Netherlands has fewer than us. He also ignored the fact that the majority of other European Community members do not give a compensatory day off when a national holiday falls at a weekend, as is normal practice in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has made an estimate of the cost impact on British business or the United Kingdom economy of the proposal that he apparently makes so glibly. If his suggestion is yet another example of the well-thought-out policies of the Labour party, we should he given a carefully calculated costing of such a proposal before it is introduced in such a casual manner.

Mr. Madel:: Is not there a case for introducing a statutory bank holiday between the August bank holiday and Christmas, which is a long period? Should not there also be a statutory holiday to coincide with half-term?

Mr. Forth: I am aware of a wide body of opinion that exactly supports my hon. Friend's proposal. However, there is an equally wide body of opinion, expressed mainly by manufacturing industries, which oppose such a move because it believes that it would disrupt the long period of uninterrupted production between the August holiday and the Christmas break. It is a finely balanced argument and so far we have not been persuaded by my hon. Friend's case.

Unemployment

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total increase in uneployment throughout the countries of' the Common Market during the past year; and what was the percentage of that increase in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howard: No comparable estimates are available on the numbers unemployed in European Community countries or on the proportion of the increase in European Community unemployment resulting from rises in unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he is avoiding the reality because it is so embarrassing. We had a slump in 1981—long before anyone else—which was when our unemployment problem began. We are now in a second slump, which will continue for a long time yet, and unemployment is rising. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that more than 80 per cent. of unemployment in the whole of Europe during the past year was in this country?

Mr. Howard: That is a misleading statistic. Far from avoiding reality, I was merely seeking to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is interested in what is happening in the European Community, he could do no better than cast his eyes across to France where a socialist Government have just announced that country's highest-ever unemployment level.

Mr. Watts: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House of any European Community country with a higher proportion of its adult population in work than the United Kingdom? Will he tell us which European country enjoyed the greatest growth in the number of jobs during the 1980s?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Between 1983 and 1989, the latest period for which comparable figures are available, more than twice as many jobs were created in Britain compared with the rest of the EC.

Mr. McLeish: Why is it that in the 12 months to September this year unemployment in Europe rose by 7 per cent., but in the United Kingdom it rose by 40 per cent? Why is it that among men in the 11 other EC countries unemployment rose by 86,000, but in the United Kingdom it rose by 609,000? Why is it that among women in the 11 other EC countries unemployment fell by 32 per cent., but in Britain it rose by 172,000? Is not that the result of the Government's characteristic incompetence? Does not that show that on the European front we are moving towards not convergence, but divergence? We have supplied the answers that the Minister refused to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) this afternoon.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he wants to make European comparisons, I refer him, as I referred the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), to what is happening in France. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the increase in unemployment last month was the lowest for almost a year, that it was the third successive fall in the rate of increase and that it shows that the rate of increase in unemployment in Britain is now coming down fast. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that development.

Mr. Marlow: Would it not be reasonable to be a little more objective? I think that it is an open secret that if the misfortune of a Labour Government being returned at the next election were to befall Britain there would be the mother and father of financial crises, which would lead to an increase in interest rates of at least 2 per cent. What effect would that have on employment in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, but he is characteristically modest in his assessment. He referred to only one of the Opposition's policies that would wreak havoc on the British economy. In addition, there are the policies that they have been advocating from the Front Bench this afternoon on the European social action programme, a national statutory minimum wage and trade union law reform, which would make it easier to strike and to have more frequent and more damaging strikes. All that would reinforce the particular policy to which my hon. Friend referred and would damage tremendously the prospects of the British people and destroy countless jobs.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent announcement of 300 pay-offs in Harland and Wolff, which has just had an increase in its order book does not augur well for the economy? Do not the Government need to give more attention to devising a regional strategy within Europe?

Mr. Howard: I especially regret those redundancies, as I regret all redundancies. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have gone to great lengths to help the Northern Ireland economy and I am sure that the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is taking will continue to alleviate the situation in the Province.

Small Businesses

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the problem of small businesses.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have frequent meetings with representatives of the small firms sector and will continue to do so.

Mr. Bellingham: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to continue to reduce taxes and deregulate, both of which will help small businesses? Is he aware that the Opposition claim to be the friend of the small business man? How does my hon. Friend think that they square that with their policies of imposing a payroll tax on small businesses and of gaoling small business men who fail to pay a socialist minimum wage?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made some important points. It is correct that Britain has one of the lowest rates of corporate tax in the developed world, something from which our businesses, large and small, have benefited enormously over the years. The Government are committed, when possible, to continue to drive down burdens on industry and rates of tax. It is equally true that Opposition Members seem obsessed with pursuing the business community with prosecutions and they frequently question me about that across a wide range of Government policies—something which I regret, but with which I have become rather familiar. The Government are committed to increasing the possibilities for businesses, large and small, and to encouraging the growth of businesses and self-employment. Our policies have been a huge success up to now and we are determined to ensure that they will continue to be so.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that in a recession in which many small businesses have gone to the wall, their failure is often identified with the late payment by large companies of their debts? What steps, other than expressing sympathy and exhortation, will the Minister and the Government take to enforce interest payments on debt and to streamline court procedures, so that it will not be too burdensome for small businesses to pursue their creditors?

Mr. Forth: There have been a number of business failures over the past, very difficult, few months, but I hasten to add that the level of new business start-ups remains resilient and robust. Under the national enterprise allowance scheme administered by the new training and enterprise councils, 1,000 new businesses have been coming into existence every week this year. I am conscious of the late payment problem, which is something to which we are devoting great attention.
Recently, we issued a new package of measures, "Making the Cash Flow", in consultation with the Institute of Credit Management and the Confederation of British Industry. I have personally written to the chairmen of the country's 100 largest companies urging them to regard prompt payment as a matter of best practice. However, I remain to be convinced that legislation would be beneficial. As yet, the bulk of the country's small business organisations are not persuaded either, but I will keep a close eye on that matter.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend recall that I was the first Minister to have responsibility for small businesses—even before the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? Will my hon. Friend do as I did and haul the leading debtors among large firms before him, to tell them that unless they jolly well pay their debts, Government legislation to force them to do so will follow? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.

Sir Anthony Grant: In his discussions, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that small firms want, more than anything, a reduction in interest rates?

Mr. Forth: I am constantly conscious of my illustrious predecessors and daily find it difficult to fill their shoes. As I said when answering the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) I have written individually to the chairmen of the 100 largest companies urging them to pay close attention to settling their debts on time. I have received personal replies from most of them, giving me assurances that that will be done. I extend a standing invitation to any firm that is not being paid on time by any of the country's 100 largest companies or Government Departments to allow me to take up its case individually. I have already done so with some success in a number of instances and I hope to continue doing so.

Mr. Cryer: The Government are supposed to support small firms, but is not the reality that they have been betraying them? High interest rates have driven hundreds of thousands of small firms out of business over the past 10 years and the loss of more than 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry has carried with it, to their doom, many small firms that depended on larger businesses. Is not it the case that the sooner the Government face a general election and are defeated, the sooner small firms will have a decent chance in the economy?

Mr. Forth: I am surprised that another of my predecessors—I choose my words very carefully—should show such ignorance about the small business sector. My figures show that although there were 34,000 business failures in the first nine months of this year, every week 1,000 new businesses have come into existence under the enterprise allowance scheme alone. The National Westminster bank, for example, opened 76,000 new small business accounts in the first six months of this year, which suggests a robust small firms sector. Although I would be the last to claim that small businesses are without their problems, it is a great tribute to the entrepreneurs and to the small business men of this country that they can deal with difficult circumstances in such a way. We pledge to continue to support them in that. I invite them to examine the Opposition's policies to see how they would fare under a Labour Government.

Mr. Butterfill: Is not it true that a large number of small firms are in the tourism sector? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he received representations from both the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board about the damage that would be done to the industry by the restrictions on part-time working and on working hours which are so beloved of Labour?

Mr. Forth: Only yesterday, my hon. Friend and I met a number of eminent representatives of the tourist industry from across the European Community. They expressed the


unanimous view that the proposals contained in the working time directive, which is to be considered by the Council of Ministers next week, would be extremely damaging to the tourist industry throughout the Community.
We in this country are very much aware of the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take the case to his colleagues in the Council of Ministers and ask them to look again at the proposals, which would be damaging not only to British industry but to industries—including tourism—right across the Community. We hope that we shall be able to make sense prevail.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in employment in Leeds, West.

Mr. Jackson: The most recent estimates of employment by parliamentary constituency are from the September 1989 census of employment, when there were 25,100 employees in employment in the Leeds, West constituency.

Mr. Battle: Unemployment in my constituency has risen by 43 per cent. in the past year, and there has been a marked increase in temporary and part-time working. Is the Minister aware that the cracker he pulls this Christmas will probably have been packaged by a home worker, as will the Christmas cards and gift tags? Does he realise that home workers in my constituency receive as little as 40p an hour? What action will the Government take to ensure that home workers obtain well-paid, reasonable employment—or does the Minister intend to revel in the Christmas season while home workers cannot afford to do so?

Mr. Jackson: Yet again, Labour is demonstrating that it is engaged in a vendetta against part-time workers. I hope that part-time workers will take note of that. Labour's policies would eliminate the part-time and home-working jobs that are available. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman really appreciates the consequences of the policies that he supports.

Catrine and Dalmellington Offices

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the proposal by the Employment Service Agency to close the offices at Catrine and Dalmellington.

Mr. Jackson: I have had three representations, including the hon. Gentleman's own.

Mr. Foulkes: Cumnock and Doon Valley district council was grateful to the Minister for holding a meeting with the council and with me. Does he recall, however, that at that meeting we pointed out that unemployment in Catrine and Dalmellington is about 14 and 15 per cent. respectively, and that male unemployment is about 18 and 19 per cent. respectively? Is this not a strange time to close offices which provide assistance for so many unemployed people? Will the Minister think again?

Mr. Jackson: I very much appreciated the opportunity to meet some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in a delegation. We had a very useful discussion, as a result of

which steps have been taken—particularly in Dalmellington, where there is an asbestos problem, making it unfeasible for the building to be reopened, but we are extending the outreach facilities there following the meeting, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is making progress. We are improving what the employment service has to offer in the new integrated offices, as all hon. Members who have been to see them will know. That includes offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Unemployment

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in 1979, 1983 and 1987; and what it is now.

Mr. Howard: On the consistent seasonally adjusted basis. United Kingdom unemployment was 1,052,500 in October 1979, 2,819,200 in October 1983, 2,641,900 in October 1987 and 2,472,900 in October 1991.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State imagine that such figures could have been given to any other Parliament in the European Community—especially in a country that had enjoyed a North sea oil bonanza over the years? Is this not utterly disgusting? Can the Secretary of State tell us the real social cost to our country of the devastation of our manufacturing industry and our economy? When will the Government retire from office so that something can be done?

Mr. Howard: Unemployment is higher in a number of other European countries. In socialist France, it is now higher than it has ever been in that country's history. Unemployment is rising in every European country except Spain, where it is nearly twice as high as it is here, and in every European Free Trade Association country, and in every G7 country it is higher than it was a year ago. Those are the facts which the hon. Gentleman should remember when supporting his own party's policies, which would destroy countless jobs in this country.

Mr. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that every Labour Government since 1929, bar one, has doubled unemployment? Has he any evidence that Opposition policies could convince us that a future Labour Government would be any different from past ones?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The one exception to that doleful list of Labour Governments who doubled unemployment during their term of office saw unemployment increase by 50 per cent. The raft of policies that the Opposition are putting before the British people would be devastating to job prospects, and so ashamed are they of the consequences of their policies that four Labour members of the Select Committee on Employment last week voted down a proposal to hold an inquiry into the effects of national statutory minimum wage because they wanted to hide the truth about that policy from the British people.

Mr. Blair: As the Secretary of State introduced employment action as an emergency programme for the jobless almost six months ago, since when unemployment has risen by several hundred thousand, can he tell us precisely how many people are on employment action?

Mr. Howard: Employment action is making excellent progress. The last time the hon. Gentleman raised the


subject of employment action in the House, he criticised the Government for providing funding for only one year. The funding is now secure for three years.

Mr. Blair: But how many people are on it?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about unemployment—[Interruption.]—he ought to have a word with his hon. Friends on the Select Committee who tried to cover up the consequences of his policy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noises of this kind are very unseemly.

Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1983 unemployment in my Leicestershire, North-West constituency was 14 per cent. and that now it is 6 per cent? Is he also aware that we lost 6,500 jobs due to mine closures and that 1,000 additional jobs have been created—a total of 7,500 extra jobs since 1983? Does that not show that the Government's policies over the years have been courageous?

Mr. Howard: The experience in my hon. Friend's constituency is typical of the experience across the country. There are more than 2·5 million additional jobs now, compared with 1983. That is the result of the policies that have consistently been followed by this Government. A large number of those jobs would be destroyed if the Labour party were ever in a position to put its policies into practice.

London Weighting

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average level of London weighting allowance paid to employees in (a) inner London and (b) outer London at the latest date of which figures are available.

Mr. Forth: The Department does not collect data on London weighting allowances.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is probably aware that the additional cost of living in inner London is more than £4,000 per year and in outer London more than £3,500 per year. Given that the private sector median allowance is £1,500 extra in inner London and £1,000 extra in outer London, will the Government ensure that their public sector pay policy follows the private sector and that they compensate people who work in London for the substantial additional cost of living in London?

Mr. Forth: It would be fascinating to speculate on why the cost of living in inner London is so high. The hon. Gentleman and I might be able to agree that it is not unadjacent to the fact that so many inner London authorities are controlled by the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman knows that questions relating to civil service pay determination and detailed pay arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am therefore unable to answer this question today, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that London is only one of several areas where costs are wildly out of line with the national average—sometimes higher and

sometimes lower? It would be healthy for public services and for dole queues if we could move away from national wage bargaining in a variety of areas.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Average earnings in London are about £100 per week higher than in regions outside London. The marketplace has, therefore, already taken some account of the differentials. My hon. Friend is correct—it must make sense to have pay bargaining as near as possible to the point and location of work so as to make the labour market work as efficiently as possible and to reward people as fairly as possible.

Small Businesses

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the economic prospects for the small business sector.

Mr. Forth: There are now unmistakable signs of the end of the recession. Business starts continue at a high rate, with more than 1,000 per week throughout the spring and summer under enterprise allowance alone. Interest rates have been cut eight times since last October. Inflation is at its lowest level for three and a half years.
The Government's past success in transforming the economic environment for small firms has been further reinforced through the efforts of employer-led, locally based training and enterprise councils and by the recently announced seven-point package of measures to help small firms and enterprise.

Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that good news and for the justifiable concern that he expressed earlier about late payment of debt. He will be aware that there is still a problem in my constituency and the south-west with the burden of the business rate, but is not the last thing that small businesses want the layers of bureaucracy that would result from 10 new regional assemblies, new sex and race discrimination legislation and the hundreds of new quangos that Labour would put into practice in its first year of office?

Mr. Forth: We shall draw the attention of the business community, especially small businesses, which are such an important part of the economy in my hon. Friend's part of the world, to the policies being espoused by the Labour party and make some estimate—if the Labour party will not do so, we certainly will—of the real burdens that they would place on business and the devastating impact that they would have on self-employment and employment throughout the country.

Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, ever since this Minister filled his predecessor's boots, he has been talking a load of rubbish. His party and that lot behind him have crucified small businesses, and the end result is the loss of many jobs. He wants to get out of that office, get out into the areas, find out what is going on and do something about the problem, or I will kick his backside for him.

Mr. Forth: One of the great regrets, I am sure, of all hon. Members is that because the hon. Gentleman has chosen to leave us at the next election he will never have the opportunity to be a junior Minister. Had he been one, he would know that a large part of the duties of anyone holding my office is to meet business men and their


representatives to discuss their problems and concerns. My colleagues and I spend much time doing that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the difficulties of the business community and that we shall continue to listen carefully and to tailor our policies to its needs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to do the same.

Wage Levels

Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations from the Confederation of British Industry concerning wage levels.

Mr. Howard: I have received no formal representations from the CBI, but I am aware of its view that pay settlements need to be more realistic if competitiveness is not to be damaged.

Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Labour's proposals for a national minimum wage may seem superficially attractive but would be deeply damaging to business, particularly small business, and to job prospects?

Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and so does every independent study and assessment that has been made of this matter. As the Leader of the Opposition has joined us, perhaps he will use his influence on the four members of his party who voted last week to cover up the truth by refusing to permit the Select Committee on Employment to conduct an investigation into the true consequences of a national minimum wage.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that although the wage increases of British workers have come down the benefits of that have been dissipated, and that due to the recession induced by the Government productivity has gone down although it has gone up in Germany and as a result unit labour costs in the year to the second quarter of 1991 went up by 3 per cent. in Germany but by 11 per cent. in this country? With a fixed exchange rate, has not this country badly lost competitiveness?

Mr. Howard: It was the hon. Gentleman's casting vote as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment which last week prevented that Committee from looking into the truth of these matters. If he had been seriously concerned about the competitiveness of British industry, he would have welcomed that inquiry and not blocked it.

Autumn Statement

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on how he proposes to spend the additional resources announced in the autumn statement.

Mr. Howard: The additional resources planned will be directed towards helping unemployed people, improving the skills of the work force and assisting small businesses and enterprise.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast the £500 million that he has added to his Department's budget and last month's fall in unemployment in Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire with the

squabbling of the Opposition Front Bench, which cannot decide whether employment and training are priorities in their programme?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. The last time the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) expressed his concerns, he gave a list of our programmes which he said were to be destroyed and eliminated. In fact, they will all be maintained and will play an increasingly important role in helping unemployed people.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister remember those heady, happy days a year ago when his predecessor was tossed out of office? Now that his policies, the economy and everything around is in disarray, and with the right hon. Lady making a comeback, who will be the first to put him out of his misery in Downing street—the people at the election or his right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not observed that in the last year inflation has fallen to 4 per cent. and the interest rate to 10·5 per cent., the tax burden on business has been lightened, there is a pay review body for teachers and better standards and choice for parents—all of which were opposed by the Labour party. When the time comes, the hon. Gentleman will have the pleasure—if he holds his seat—of staying on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comment made on Sunday that we should not commit ourselves now in advance of 1997 to a single currency as a point of agreement that all sensible people could hold? Will he contrast that with the words of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that Labour would sign up to a single currency now, irrevocably?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. That was certainly the view of the right hon. Gentleman in the debate last week, but it was flatly contradicted by his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor on television at the weekend. Of course, he did say that not committing ourselves to a single currency was the point of agreement that "all sensible people" would have.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister still take the view, as he told the House last Thursday, that he has the full support of his predecessor?

The Prime Minister: My predecessor supported me in the Lobby last week, as did the vast majority of the House.

Mr. Kinnock: That answer demonstrates just how hollow was the vote for the right hon. Gentleman last


Thursday night. Does the Prime Minister not remember saying just a year ago on the steps of Downing street that the Conservative party was
fully united for the future
and is that not patently false now when, in the approach to the vital meeting at Maastricht, the Tory party is in a state of open warfare?

The Prime Minister: It is within the recollection of the House that there were around 28 Labour abstentions in the Division last week. We also know from the honest remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that around two fifths of the Labour party opposed its Front Bench's policy on Europe.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time that I have asked him a question since his appointment, and I intend to enjoy it? Is he further aware that he carries the good wishes of the party behind him in the difficult few months to come and should go to the talks in great confidence, knowing of the great contribution that this country has made to Europe since the days of William Pitt?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman get on with it, please?

Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in dealing with things that we hold so dear we want to make sure that the European Community gives us a good bargain and that what we give to it will be given back to us?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased to be in a position to answer his question. He is entirely right about the British contribution to Europe, both in the long term and in the past few years when much of the present shape of the Community has arisen from initiatives by this country. We can play a role in developing Europe or we can turn our backs on the Community. By turning our backs, we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community and I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister approaches the first anniversary of his move into his new home, will he spare a thought for the tens of thousands who, because of his policies, are now losing theirs? Does he realise that mortgage repossessions were 16,000 in 1989 and 44,000 last year, and that this year they are predicted to rise to 120,000, or 1 per cent. of all mortgage holders? Does he realise that he cannot sit on the fence on this one, and what does he intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman should have noticed, a few days ago my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced further steps to help all those in receipt of income support who have mortgages. The right hon. Gentleman says that that helps nobody, but it costs £400 million a year, so it must help rather a lot of people.

Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend contrast the judicious, prudent and honourable way in which he and his right hon. Friends are negotiating in the European talks with the cynical sell-out proposed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)?

The Prime Minister: It is the case that we have set out our position perfectly clearly so that our European

partners know what is acceptable to the House and what is not. The Labour party's position is now perfectly clear. If somebody else in Europe wants it, it will sign up to it.

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Prime Minister consider the abolition of standing charges to pensioners by the private monopolies? Does he agree that with the massive increases in salaries for those bodies' chairmen and the ridiculous spend on advertising that we are witnessing, those companies can well afford to drop the standing charges? Why does not the Prime Minister arrange to meet pensioners' representatives at No. 10 Downing street and listen to their powerful case on the matter?

The Prime Minister: The abolition of one or other of the energy standing charges has been a popular mission for many people for many years, but abolition would undoubtedly lead to a higher unit cost and as many of the most vulnerable people use the most electricity or the most fuel generally, they would in fact be net losers and not net beneficiaries.

Mr. Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the chairman, trustees and staff of the Aintree national health service hospital trust on the establishment of a new £7 million project that will give it the largest accident and emergency unit in Europe? Is that not the best possible example of how the Government's commitment to the NHS is working?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of that investment, but I very much welcome it. It shows the huge investment currently being made in the national health service and the excellent way in which many trusts are using the resources available to them.

Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Turner: How does the Prime Minister justify sending his son to a private school where nearly £4,000 a year is spent on each child when at present half the children in Tory-run Cambridgeshire's secondary schools receive only half that amount and when that authority is currently reducing its budget by almost £2 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about choice?"] I ask that question in terms not of choice, but of equity for all children.

The Prime Minister: Our party believes in choice. I note yet again the Labour party's hostility to any persons exercising any choice in the interests of their family. I believe that millions of people in this country will acknowledge that there would be no choice for them if there were a Labour Government.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the 1992 legislation does not come into force until 31 December 1992 and that the same is true of the 1986 Single European Act? Will he confirm to the


House, the country and the international community that he will then be in his second term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. One reason why that will be so is that we have a coherent approach to Europe, not one that changes every weekend.

Cyprus

Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Cyprus.

The Prime Minister: I next plan to visit Cyprus for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1993.

Mr. Cox: As Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and we are one of the guarantor powers for that island, how does the Prime Minister justify the ongoing occupation of much of that island by the Turkish army? Against that background and the highly critical comments of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 8 October about the attitude and behaviour of Mr. Denktash. when will the Government—and the Prime Minister in particular—show some evidence of active involvement in the affairs of Cyprus for the benefit of both communities, Greek and Turkish? When does he intend to do that?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had a number of meetings with President Vassiliou during the year and that I have already met Turkish Ministers, as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We continue to give support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement. The United Nations is soon to resume discussions with both sides. I hope that sufficient progress can be made for the Secretary-General to convene an international meeting soon, as endorsed by a number of Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to do all that we can to resolve the problem.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that the Conservative Government are planning to spend more next year on local—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Cyprus.

Engagements

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who said on Friday
We are not accepting the principle of a single currency"—
yes or no, please?

The Prime Minister: It is entirely clear from the documents in front of us in the treaty that we are enabling ourselves to have the option to opt in. We are not committed to opting in by anything in either clause 2 or any later part of the treaty.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any proposal to double the European Community structural funds will inevitably result in higher tax bills for the British taxpayer? Will he therefore assure the House that that proposal, which is supported by the Labour party, will be resisted most strenuously at Maastricht on the basis that one man's subsidy is another man's tax bill?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although the issue is not directly on the table at Maastricht. We have made it clear that we see no case for a further massive increase in the structural funds. They are already substantial. They were doubled in real terms in 1987 over a five-year period. The contribution from some member states represents as large a share of gross domestic products as Marshall aid did after world war two.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the excellent article in the Glasgow Herald yesterday by the last Conservative leader of Glasgow district council, reflecting on the problems facing the Tory party in coming to terms with the need to give Scotland its own Parliament? If the Prime Minister gets a chance to read it, will he accept that it more accurately reflects the views of the people of Scotland than his Front Bench team does?

The Prime Minister: The strict answer is no, Sir, I have not yet studied that article, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman says I will most certainly do so. I do not believe that people in Scotland wish to break the Union. That is the direction in which the Labour party's policies are going.

Local Government Finance (England)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority finance settlement for England for 1992–93.
I told the House on 23 July that, in the Government's view, local authorities in England will need to spend £41·8 billion in 1992–93. That is 7·2 per cent. up on the equivalent figure this year. Central Government will distribute £33·1 billion in support of that expenditure. That also is up by 7·2 per cent. Today I am issuing a consultation paper setting out how we propose to distribute those totals.
As I announced on 6 November, the business rate multiplier next year will be 40·2p. This is in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index to September of 4·1 per cent. The total burden on businesses would have been £600 million, or 5 per cent., higher if the business rates had continued to rise in line with local authority spending.
I propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £12·3 billion. We will continue to pass on all receipts from business ratepayers to local authorities to support their expenditure.
I will shortly be laying a draft order to increase the rate at which businesses gaining from the introduction of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation receive the benefits of the new system. The effect will be to release £100 million to the benefit of about 150,000 ratepayers, typically in manufacturing industry in the north and midlands.
I propose to pay nearly £309 million in area protection grant. That will continue to provide help to those areas where introduction of the community charge would have otherwise resulted in an undue burden on charge payers. There will also be a grant of £50 million for education authorities in inner London to assist with overspending inherited from the Inner London education authority.
I also propose to pay a special grant of about £86 million to meet 75 per cent. of local authorities' costs, excluding capital spending, on preparing for the council tax. I recognise that these are exceptional costs which authorities would not otherwise need to incur. Accordingly, that special grant, which I propose to distribute on the basis of the number of domestic properties in each charging authority's area, with an adjustment to reflect the higher costs in London and the south-east, will be outside the settlement totals. I am today sending authorities an exemplification of that proposal.
I propose that the total of revenue support grant for 1992–93 will be just over £16·6 billion. In addition, about £3·8 billion of specific grants will be available. After allowing for specific grants, the total of standard assessments will increase by around 6·8 per cent.
The consultation paper issued today gives details of the proposed standard spending assessments for all authorities. In considering how SSAs should be calculated, I have been conscious of the need to maintain stability from one year to the next. I am, nevertheless, proposing some minor changes to improve the basis of distribution. There are three, in particular, which I should mention. First, we will use more recent data which have become available on overnight visitors and the information will be extended to

include foreign visitors. Secondly, we will discontinue the adjustment in respect of revenue support for bus services in London. We have now devised a new methodology which removes the need for the separate adjustment. Thirdly, the counties have rightly pointed out that they have relatively less scope to generate interest receipts than other authorities. For next year we will, therefore, change our methodology so as to make separate assumptions about the ability of different classes of authority to generate interest receipts. Those changes are designed to deal with long-standing grievances from particular groups of authorities without introducing too much disruption to SSAs.
Under my proposals, the community charge for standard spending will be about £257. Efficient authorities should be able to set charges which are even lower. Actual charges, however, will depend on authorities's budgets and on their efficiency and determination in collecting the charge.
Many people will, of course, pay much less than £257 because of help through the community charge reduction scheme and the community charge benefits. Entitlement under the community charge reduction scheme will be based on the difference between the rates and this year's community charge; and people who moved home this year and lost their entitlement to a reduction may be able to qualify at their new address. The total value of the reduction scheme will be similar to this year—that is, about £1·1 billion.
I told the House on 23 July that if authorities did not budget sensibly next year, I would not hesitate to use my powers to curb excessive budgets or excessive increases in budget and to protect charge payers from the consequences.
I am today announcing my provisional criteria. As last year, I consider it reasonable to allow smaller increases for those authorities whose budgets are well above their SSAs. Where budgets are very substantially above SSA, as is the case for some authorities brought within capping for the first time following the abolition of the £15 million threshold, I intend to seek budget reductions. In such cases, I consider it right to expect the greatest reductions from those authorities whose budgets exceed SSA to the greatest extent. But in all cases I intend the reductions to be achievable, albeit demanding.
My intended criteria are therefore: any increase of more than 6·5 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over the authority's SSA.

Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Martlew: My point of order is this. Is it correct —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If a point of order is raised with me, I must hear what it is. Otherwise, I cannot rule.

Mr. Martlew: Is it correct that members of the press have been issued with a copy of the statement from the Secretary of State? I have just been to the Table Office, where it is not available to hon. Members. Is that not wrong? Does it not show a disregard for the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea whether that is correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Order. The whole House knows my view about this.

Mr. Heseltine: Any increase of more than 4·5 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA; and any increase of more than 2·5 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
In addition, I intend that any budget more than 12·5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive, save that an authority will not be designated if its budget is 30 per cent. or less over SSA and is no more than that set for 1991–92; if its budget is 60 per cent. or less over SSA and is 5 per cent. or more below that set for 1991–92; or if its budget is 10 per cent. or more below that set for 1991–92.
In 1990–91 there was a de minimis provision allowing authorities budgeting only a small amount above the criteria for excessiveness not to be designated. In 1991–92 the criteria included a principle that no authority was to be designated if its budget was excessive by £10,000 or less. Local authorities should not assume that there will be any such proviso or principle for 1992–93.
I intend to make special provision for the particular circumstances of the inner London boroughs which still bear the cost of inherited overspending by the Inner London education authority, and for the City of London.
These criteria are necessarily provisional, as was the case with the criteria which the Government set out last November. When I come to make my decisions on capping, I will, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations. I have placed a paper in the Library and Vote Office setting out my intentions in detail and have sent a copy to local authorities.
The provisional criteria which I have announced are tough, but manageable. We are determined that all authorities should exercise expenditure restraint arid use the very considerable extra resources we have made available to keep charges at reasonable levels. Well managed authorities will be able to achieve effective service provision with budgets at or below the level of the provisional criteria.
My proposals for local authority spending and for external support are fair and realistic. The rate of inflation now stands at 3·7 per cent. per annum. Local government cannot expect to stand apart from our determination to exert continuing downward pressure. Against that background, this settlement should enable authorities to deliver local services of the quality people expect and deserve, at a level of charge which they can afford.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Secretary of State recall in May last year castigating universal capping in an excellent article in The Times, when he said it would
negate accountability and be an act of centralised political power outside our experiences… Local authorities should be free to set and account for their own budgets."?
Does the Secretary of State feel any sense of embarrasssment at so quickly abandoning that stance and introducing today precisely the universal capping that he rightly attacked just 18 months ago? Does he feel any embarrassment at further undermining what little remains of local government democracy by imposing through central Government a straitjacket which means that every local council budget henceforth is his budget, that every

cut in services henceforth is his cut and that every poll tax bill be his bill? When those bills arrive in March and April of next year, every one will bear the Secretary of State's fingerprints.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the statement has been so long delayed and is three or four weeks later than in previous years? How is local government, already hard pressed by the horrendous problems of collecting the poll tax and the preparations for the council tax, to grapple with this further delay? Will it mean that the consultation period will be shorter, or will the final RSG settlement also be delayed, or both? Was the delay because of a defect in the computers or a defect in Ministers?
Does the Secretary of State recall his predecessor's admission that SSAs were fundamentally flawed and should be reformed? How does he respond to the Audit Commission's warning that
The Government should not underestimate the lack of confidence in SSAs among local government politicians and professionals"?
Why are we stuck with an unfair system which, without any supporting evidence, concludes, for example, that it costs £857 per adult in Wigan for a standard level of service but 69 per cent. more, at £1,448, in Manchester? What confidence can there be in a system which does not include economic deprivation—surely a fundamental factor—but does include visitor nights and is now to be extended to include foreign visitors, something that can be considered only as a renewal of the Westminster benefit? How can local government trust an arbitrary and capricious system which measures the number of days when snow lies on the ground and concludes that Harrow, at 15·4 days, has more snow than Cumbria, at only 12·6?
Why, given the increase in the business rate, is £100 million less being distributed from the national business rate to local government than is the case this year? Is that yet another effect of the recession, or is there another explanation?
Does the Secretary of State expect the damaging cuts demanded by his capping criteria to be effected without any real impact on services or those who depend on them? Is Derwentside, for example, to be expected to make cuts worth 10 per cent. in cash terms and 17 per cent. in real terms, and is Tory-dominated Elmbridge to be expected to make cuts of 8 per cent. in cash terms and 15 per cent. in real terms, without deep and damaging consequences for services?
Has the right hon. Gentleman checked with the Home Office whether single-service police authorities can finance their Home Office-approved levels of police stablishment? If he does, he will be told that the answer is no.
Is the right hon. Gentleman's £257 prediction of the average poll tax not predicated on the same fanciful assumptions about 100 per cent. collection as earlier vitiated and equally over-optimistic predictions in the last few years? Is it not the same fairy-tale exercise as we saw in 1990 and 1991?
With this reminder that the poll tax is still alive—I was going to say, and well, but that would be a misrepresentation—and that the bills will arrive yet again next year, and with this abandonment by the Secretary of State of all principle in introducing universal capping, is this not yet another black day for local government? Our only consolation is that, for the Secretary of State, nemesis is close at hand.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asks me whether I feel any sense of embarrassment about the capping levels. I have given him the answer before. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely generous in giving £140 per community charge person to lower the level of community charges. It seems to me absolutely essential to protect that benefit to the community charge payer, and I know of no other way to do it but to cap the local authorities which would otherwise spend it.
The question flowing from that lies in the fact that, if we do not cap, it is automatic that there would be approval from the hon. Gentleman for increases in expenditure. So I therefore want him to say how much authority he has from the shadow Chancellor for the increases in public expenditure that lie behind every question that he has asked me today. How much would it cost in extra community charge and in extra tax rates to add to the 59p in the pound with which we are already threatened by the Labour party?
We were then asked to listen to the case of the hard-pressed local authorities. It might be helpful if I tell the hon. Gentleman how hard pressed they really are. In 1980–81, the cash available for the financing of relevant grants and expenditure was £19,307 million. In 1991–92, it was £39,892 million. At 1991–92 constant prices, that is a 5 per cent. real-terms increase in the expenditure of local authorities, so there have not been cuts as the hon. Gentleman claims.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about bringing foreign visitors into the calculations of SSAs. If a local authority is confident and keen to attract tourists to its area, foreign visitors are just as attractive as domestic visitors. We have simply updated the calculations on the basis of later information available to us. All that is explored with my Department by the local authority working groups.
I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully supports the increase in expenditure on the police provided by the settlement, whereby it will be increased by 12·9 per cent. That will pay for the excess of 16,000 extra police officers who have come on to the establishment since the Government were elected, and the extra 1,000 police officers announced by my right hon. Friend recently.
When the hon. Gentleman asks so many questions about the changes in SSAs in one area as opposed to another, he should ask why it costs on average £255 more per person to deliver services under a Labour authority than it does under a Conservative authority. If one considers the whole of London, why does it cost a Labour authority £131 per person more to deliver services than it would cost a Conservative authority?
It is not just a London phenomenon. In every class of authority, voting Labour costs a large sum of money. In the shire districts, it costs £70 and in the metropolitan districts it costs £61 per community charge payer to vote Labour. Taking the whole of local government in aggregate, the cost of voting Labour in an area controlled by that party as opposed to the Conservative party is, on average, £83. The only lesson is that the Labour party is extravagant, profligate and totally uninterested in the benefits to its community charge payers. It is interested only in the Labour-dominated, trade union-restricted services, which it seems to want to increase regardless of cost.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate on further and higher education in Scotland later this afternoon, so I shall allow questions on the statement until 4·30. I hope to be able to call all hon. Members who wish to participate if they ask brief questions.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend explain why provision is made for local authorities with a history of overspending but not for local authorities with a history of underspending, which may have very expensive problems in rural areas, and extensive school networks and social services, to a level which cost far more than in the authorities which have a history of high spending?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the interests of his constituency. However, SSA methodology, like all previous methodologies for distributing grant from central Government, is discussed with great care by my Department with the working groups of the local authorities. A statistical analysis is carried out and formulae are arranged to bring about that distribution. The characteristic reaction of local authorities is that each of them and every class of them has been disadvantaged, but none of them can ever reach a formula which the others will accept.

Mr. David Bellotti: Does the Secretary of State agree that, now and in the next financial year, local authorities will be spending much money needlessly trying to collect the poll tax from people who can ill afford to pay it? Does he not accept the Government's responsibility for that? He has asked the local authorities to collect the council tax the following year, so is not now the time to say that the Government will pay the whole cost of the introduction of the new council tax? Does the Secretary of State agree that the percentage increases that he announced today do not cover such legislation as the Children Act 1989, the introduction of care in the community and the extra police officers announced by the Home Secretary? It is not much good the Government saying that police authorities may appoint police officers if the Government then stop them from doing so by capping the authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should give 100 per cent. grants in such circumstances, because that would remove the authorities' incentive to deliver effective and cost-conscious services. As to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question on the collection of the community charge, I have looked into the matter. It is interesting to note that it is not necessarily Labour authorities that cannot collect the charge.
Of the top 10 community charge collection authorities last year, three were Labour: Cannock Chase collected 110 per cent. of its budget, Copeland collected 105 per cent. and Gateshead collected 104 per cent. The only conclusion to draw from that is that the authorities that do not collect their community charge are ineffective and inefficient.
That is why, if we consider the authorities with the worst record of collecting the charge, we find that in 1990–9I Labour had a clean sweep—the worst 10 authorities were all Labour-controlled. Of the 10 worst authorities in 1991–92, only nine are Labour, but the one clear characteristic of all the statistics is that the Labour


party is ineffective and inefficient in collecting its bills. If the worst Labour authorities had behaved like the best three, they would not have encountered a problem.

Sir Timothy Raison: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to help those charge payers who, perhaps because they were too young, were not rate payers, and who now derive no protection under the reduction scheme?

Mr. Heseltine: It is quite difficult to help people who were not paying a specific bill when the new system came into existence. We can only introduce schemes—we have done so on a generous basis—for those people whose bills suddenly increased from a lowish level to a much higher one. We have introduced transitional schemes for them. I do not think that we can introduce schemes to help people who never had a bill.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not the Secretary of State's own bill far less than most people's, particularly in London, where, under the new council tax, he will pay less than people who occupy garages in eight London boroughs? Should he not have come to the House and said that he would make arrangements to help those who cannot pay the poll tax and are forced to pay the 20 per cent. minimum contribution? Should he not have said that he would get rid of the minimum 20 per cent. rule?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will want to give us every help in getting the new council tax on to the statute book as quickly as possible, as it does exactly what he suggests.

Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West): Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the experience of my borough council, Reading, which is near his constituency, which blew all the reserves immediately the Labour party came into control by placing bollards all over the bloody town—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is inelegant, I think, for Reading.

Sir Anthony Durant: The bollards, which I shall not describe, were placed throughout the town. The council blew all its reserves and failed to collect the community charge, so that everyone has had to pay an extra £48 on their community charge this year because of the level of non-collection.

Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend and his constituents. I hope that, under the present regime, the local authority will collect the community charge and save a great deal of money for those who would otherwise have to pay excess bills.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: When the Secretary of State announced the figures today, he made it clear that he expected the extra expenditure to be used on reducing the charge—the poll tax—not increasing services. What proportion of SSAs to local authorities has been allocated for increased expenditure for the implementation of the Children Act 1989?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will know that we never give specific breakdowns of individual figures, but she will also know that service increases are given. For example, the increase for personal social services is 7·7 per cent.,

education 7·1 per cent., police 10·9 per cent., fire and civil defence 8 per cent. and other services 9·2 per cent., with a total of 7·2 per cent.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the new regulations, there is no need for any local authority to be capped, even the most irrational Labour council, because new targets have been set and the councils are required to meet those new targets only from the current starting point?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have clearly told local authorities where the capping regime could bite after consultation, and they now have plenty of time to adjust. It is important to make the point that, across the country, businesses, which pay vast sums of money towards local authorities, are having to make such adjustments all the time.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the Secretary of State explain why my local authority of Durham has an SSA which is half that of Hove, an authority similar in functions and population? Is it perhaps because Durham is Labour-controlled and Hove is Tory-controlled?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know full well that, in a statement such as this, we cannot look into the details of every one of the hundreds of authorities. However, all the information is available to him and to his local authority, and the answer will be because the methodology of the SSA system delivers the results that he has suggested, if those are in accord with the real world. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to write to my Department and seek any further clarification that he wants.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a council such as Derbyshire, which spends nearly £14 million a year pegging school meals to 1981 prices but which at the same time sacks hundreds of teachers and which has increased its work force by 8,000 in the past decade but cut the number of police, can have no credibility in its ritual whining about underfunding?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend puts his point with extreme eloquence, and I very much support the thrust of what he says.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Secretary of State now prepared to meet the seven authorities which have wanted to meet him for months to discuss their problems with their SSAs? Will he now come off his high horse and meet those people rather than shove them on to his Minister of State?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise the pitfalls of responding favourably to a suggestion that the Secretary of State should receive a delegation, when there are still 28 minutes to go in which every other right hon. and hon. Member could make the same request. I can at least say that we meet delegations, we carefully consider all applications that are put to us, and there is no reason why his should automatically be turned down.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the best bits of news in his statement today was his announcement that the business rate increase would be kept to no more than the


rate of inflation in the coming period? What prospect is there that the Government will be able to go further than that in due course and reduce the rate of increase in the business rate, which bears hard on many new small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware that a strong body of opinion wants us to look at the matter again. My hon. Friend will realise that a revaluation is scheduled for, I think, 1995, which might address some of the problems. Another important part of the background is that, as the economy recovers, so the pressure on many of those businesses will be eased.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Is it not the case that the errors which have been apparent in previous SSAs have been repeated in this year's statement, in that the SSAs are still being calculated on the 1981 census data and many of the factors are simply irrelevant to local authorities such as my own?

Mr. Heseltine: I addressed that question earlier as fully as I could. The distribution of central finance is always a controversial issue, with arguments between individual authorities and classes of authority to the effect that it is unfair or does not provide what they want. That will be the case whatever system operates. The working parties presided over by my Department, but deeply involving of course local authorities and other Government Departments, consider all the evidence and try to reach agreement on a practical way forward. Ultimately, it falls to the Government to take decisions; otherwise, no decisions would be made.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Does he agree that nothing can excuse the wanton and vicious extravagance of so many Labour authorities, and that it is about time that the costs of non-collection were met by forcing local authorities to reduce their expenditure rather than imposing them on virtuous citizens who pay their community charge?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's indignation, which is widely shared throughout the country. Far and away the best solution would be for all local authorities to be determined to collect the proper entitlements of the bills they issue. That would enable many of them to deliver a far better service.

Mr. John Battle: Is it not a fact that, under last year's standard spending assessment, Merton received only an 18 per cent. grant, the lowest in London, whereas Wandsworth received the highest, at 24 per cent.? Is that not repeated in this year's assessment, which reveals a similar divergence? Does that not prove that the Government are providing more funds to Tory-controlled authorities than to Labour authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman selects his authorities carefully, and fails to point out that Lambeth and Hackney are at the top of the list of distributions. It has nothing to do with the unfortunate party political point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make: it is a matter of trying to allocate resources according to the needs of individual authorities.

Sir David Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem of workers and others in tied accommodation, who do not pay any rates and who are thus ineligible for transitional relief?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand that difficulty, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are in the last year of the community charge. Also, a large number of people who let their properties on a service tenure to the individuals occupying them pay the consequential community charge, in the same way that they previously paid rates.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the Conservatives' claim to be the party of law and order, does the Secretary of State agree with Merseyside police authority that capping will cause the loss of 400 to 500 policemen on the beat in Merseyside?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will want to consult his authority in the light of today's announcement. One cannot escape the fact that more than 16,000 extra policemen have joined the establishment since this Government were elected, and a further 1,000 are to come as a result of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That cannot be construed as anything but a dramatic commitment by the Government to law and order.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Many of us felt that the old regional development grants were arbitrary and unfair to certain cities. Can my right hon. Friend illustrate by the figures that he has given today how the distribution of the unified business rate will operate more fairly and helpfully to the benefit of towns and cities in the north, such as that which I represent?

Mr. Heseltine: I am very interested by my hon. Friend's comment. I do not have to hand a breakdown of the distribution of the non-domestic rate, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome my statement that, because more was collected from the national business rate than was expected, we have been able to release the benefits—particularly to manufacturing industry in the north and the midlands. That has made available about £100 million more than expected, which will be shared by 190,000 ratepayers.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Although the right hon. Gentleman's own Department acknowledges that Wigan metropolitan borough provides services comparable, in terms of their value, to those offered by local authorities such as Wandsworth, again this year Wigan has a standard spending assessment of less than half that applying to comparable authorities. Is it not a disgrace how the SSA operates against the interests of local authorities that provide, in the words of the Secretary of State, value-for-money services? Should they not receive the same level of grant that authorities such as Wandsworth receive?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has returned to an issue that we have explored exhaustively. The fact is that local authorities do not agree among themselves on any alternative method of distributing central Government funds. Each class argues for more for itself, and, inevitably, each authority within each class argues for more for itself. In the end, someone must make a decision,


and, as central Government distribute the money, it is not surprising that the Secretary of State will present their proposals to the House.

Mr. Michael Shersby: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the expense that is now being incurred by certain authorities with major ports of entry in their areas in connection with the care of refugees and asylum seekers?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised what I know to be an important and difficult issue. It is indeed a growing issue, which concerns us all. Within the standard spending assessments are indicators measuring social hardship and the incidence of social problems. They would, in part, impact on the difficulties that my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Secretary of State the nerve to admit that, in the past two years, grants have been allocated to ensure that Tory flagships such as Wandsworth and Westminster are safe for Tory control, and that this year he has decided to fiddle the figures to save all the Tory marginals for the general election—or, at least, in an attempt to do so? Is it not ironic that a Cabinet Minister should be taking over the budgets of all the local authorities in Britain, while at the same time his Cabinet colleagues are handing power over the national Budget to the Common Market?

Mr. Heseltine: Some of us would rather see the Budget handed over to the Common Market than see it handed over to the hon. Gentleman's party. As long as my party remains in power, however, there is not the slightest chance of either the Common Market or the Labour party getting it.
Let me help the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to suggest that grant has been distributed in a "party" way. He must explain the fact that, over the past two years, total standard spending has increased by 27 per cent., and aggregate Exchequer finance produced by central Government by 43 per cent. There is no conceivable way in which that could be described as a party political allocation.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend must be aware that £50 of the £140 concession was swallowed up by the failure of many people to pay their community charge. In my Labour-controlled area, only £90 was returned.
A curious advertisement has been placed in the local papers, asking people to pay their community charge. Part of it states: "The Southampton Labour group does not agree with the poll tax"—and that is in the middle of an advertisement whose aim is to make people pay up. Does my right hon. Friend know about that, and does he know about the four pages that I have sent to his Department, which deal with wasteful products and wasteful propositions in Southampton? Will he ensure that Labour-controlled Southampton city council is scrutinised and capped?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend rightly feels strongly about the inability of some authorities to collect their community charge, while nevertheless spending large sums. It is, however, the democratic responsibility of local people to carry out checks. I have no power to intervene

in the internal affairs of the local authorities; that is a matter for the local democratic process or, as a last resort, for the Audit Commission.

Mr. Martlew: How can the Minister justify asking Carlisle city council to reduce its budget by £400,000 when Government spending is out of control? Carlisle is probably one of the best district councils in the country. That was acknowledged by the Minister, who recently appointed its very able leader to the Audit Commission. How can we expect the Secretary of State, sitting in Whitehall, to know what is best for the people of Carlisle? Time and time again, they have democratically elected a Labour council. When will the Secretary of State give democracy back to the people?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that, having given £140 per community charge payer to the people, it is my responsibility to protect that generosity by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to ensure that it is not mopped up by the extravagance of local authorities.

Mr. Paul Marland: I know that the subject has already been raised once before, but it is so important that I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any possibility of the Government reviewing the step-by-step increases in the business rate for small businesses. These large increases are putting many small businesses, not only in my constituency but throughout the country, in a very difficult situation.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members. The situation has undoubtedly proved much more difficult because of the strain of the economy on small businesses. I very much hope that, as the economy recovers, as it is now beginning to do, that pressure will ease. My hon. Friend knows that small businesses are protected from excessive increases by the limits that we have introduced. That is the limit of what we are able to do.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the rules changes that he has instituted, some local authorities could have to make cuts of up to 10 per cent.? Derwentside is one example. The Secretary of State says that there is a need for stability. Is there not a case, therefore, for looking at those local authorities where the impact has been exceptional?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the capping regime that I announced, we recognised that there was a limit to the speed at which we could expect change to come about. We have said that, when local authorities begin the process of adjustment, there is a point beyond which, in a given year, no further pressure will be exerted. However, to become an overspender on the scale of some authorities means that money is being spent on a dramatically larger scale than by equivalent authorities providing similar services.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Did I mishear my right hon. Friend? Did he say that the rules for people who qualify for rebate may be changed if they move house? If so, will he elaborate? Nothing causes more ill feeling and resentment in my patch than the fact that people lose their right to rebate solely because they move house.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will find that, where people have moved, there are some opportunities for them to claim rebate. I should be happy to look into the cases of any specific constituents if my hon. Friend would care to write to me.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: First, why was it absolutely necessary for this statement on English business to be made today, before the debate on Second Reading of the only Scottish Bill this Session? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain, given the fact that he is the string that pulls the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters, how the business alleviation that he proposes will compensate businesses for the inflationary and recessionary consequences of the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT that he was responsible for imposing on businesses in the first place?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is confusing many different issues. We arranged to make this statement now in order to give local authorities plenty of time. There is always, as the hon. Gentleman knows and as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House constantly explains, pressure for time on the Floor of the House. I must therefore leave it to my right hon. Friend to determine the appropriate moment at which I should make a statement.

Mr. Robert Banks: I must tell my right hon. Friend that, in my experience, Liberal Democrat-run councils are every bit as incompetent as Labour-run councils. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The level of grant to local authorities is considerably higher than the rate of inflation. More particularly, I welcome his statement about the inclusion of visitor nights in the standard spending assessment methodology. That will help many authorities. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having listened to the representations that were put to him.

Mr. Heseltine: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. This has been a source of controversy with local authorities, but we now have more up-to-date information. The previous information stretched back to the early 1970s. We have been able to help significantly, but I am only too well aware that, when we have done so, the authorities that have lost have complained that we have switched to an unacceptable new system, although I have no doubt that it is a better one.

Ms. Joan Walley: What account has the Secretary of State taken of the representations that Staffordshire made to the Department of Health, which we understood would be relayed to the Department of the Environment? What is his advice to parents whose children live in Staffordshire's residential homes or homes for the mentally and physically handicapped, which need £19 million to bring them up to the standards laid down following pindown and the Utting report? Does not Staffordshire's standard spending assessment mean that the county will be nowhere near able to meet its statutory responsibilities?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will know that we consulted on the matters that I have announced today. The capping regimes are essentially a consultative process. The working parties that my Department organises include representatives of local authorities and of the Department of Health. The information to which she drew our

attention will have been considered by all the people concerned. That is not the end of the story—there is still a chance for it to happen—but it is fair to point out that a range of other authorities will have their own views on why they should be given more money, which is always to be found at somebody else's expense.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the worst examples of overspending must have been the unlamented Inner London education authority. He said again today that he has had to compensate the new inner-London education authorities. In considering the figures, has he found that Conservative-controlled authorities—Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea—have moved much faster and more efficiently in cutting overspending than Labour-controlled authorities?

Mr. Tony Worthington: That is a difficult question.

Mr. Heseltine: No, it is not difficult at all. I cannot entirely accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Inner London education authority was the worst of the authorities that we got rid of: I always thought that the GLC was a close competitor for that claim. However, we got rid of both, which is a help.
All I can do is point to the stark contrast between the community charge bills of Labour and Conservative authorities in inner London. The figures are quite startling. The average community charge of an inner-London Conservative authority is £98. Under a Labour authority, it is £353—a cost of £255 per community charge payer for voting Labour.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree that education is critical to breaking the cycle of deprivation? Will he therefore ensure that the additional £50 million for inner-London education is spent on inner-London education?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We are compensating London boroughs for ILEA's excess costs to enable them to adjust over a phased programme. That is the purpose of the £50 million.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for congratulation that he has announced today a real-terms increase in local authority spending? Nevertheless, does he accept that real choices will have to be made by local authorities and that it would have been dishonest to announce a catalogue of spending promises when perhaps he had failed to obtain the extra money from Treasury colleagues and had privately briefed councillors that that spending could not be made? Have not we discovered from today's newspapers that that is what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has been doing? Is not that dishonest, and totally typical of him?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That word will have to be withdrawn. The term "dishonest" is not to be applied to hon. Members.

Mr. Hughes: I replace it with "an unlikely proposition".

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to say that the total standard spend will rise by 7·2 per cent. next year, whereas inflation is currently running at 3·7 per cent. Therefore, as far as one can forecast, that is likely to be a real-terms increase in local authority expenditure


consistent with the pattern throughout the 1980s of a 5 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure. However, every time the settlement is announced to the House, one hears endlessly from the Opposition about cuts. In the real world, there has been a 5 per cent. increase.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why can we not have a fundamental review of the standard spending assessment, which is the second great evil of the poll tax? Of 296 non-metropolitan districts, North-East Derbyshire finishes 295th in terms of standard spending assessment per poll tax payer, but the people of north-east Derbyshire are not filthy rich, so there is clearly something very peculiar about the formula. Even at this stage, they are being asked to pay 30 per cent. of the total standing spending assessment out of the poll tax moneys, although, at the beginning of the poll tax, we were told that only 25 per cent. would have to be raised in that way. Since then, there have been massive increases in value added tax. As we know—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Barnes: As we know something about these matters in North-East Derbyshire, could we—like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and his constituents—meet the Minister?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member fulfils my expectations. I realise that, if I were as generous to the hon. Gentleman as it is in my nature to be, it would be only a matter of time before other colleagues sought to expose that weakness in my character and to obtain extra meetings. We do meet delegations—although not from every hon. Member—but if the hon. Gentleman cares to make a submission, we shall consider it carefully.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider the position of people who become 18 after 1 April? Surely it does not make sense for such a person to pay more community charge than the parents with whom he lives?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlines, but I do not wish to leave any doubt. We shall not be able to reconsider the matter in the context of the last settlement for the community charge. We have considered so many exemptions and have helped so many people that we must now proceed with the settlement and recognise that it will be the last one.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Why does the Secretary of State not admit that, after 13 years of fiddling with grant-related expenditure assessments, with standard spending assessments and with the whole system of local government finance, he still does not have a system that he can prove is fair? Does he not agree that most people would say, neutrally, that the Government are anti-local government and wholly incompetent and that it is time for a change and for fairness to be part of local government once again?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is largely right, which is why the council tax is coming.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On Saturday morning, I am to meet a group of 14 local head teachers, who have been led to believe by the local authority that there will be massive education cuts next year, which will increase the teacher-pupil ratio.
What am I to tell those head teachers, and how can we be sure that the money sent to Rochdale and Oldham metropolitan borough councils will be spent on education, as some of it was intended to be?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will want to tell them that the increase in SSAs for education over 1991–92 will be 7·1 per cent.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In deciding on the assessment for Cumbria police, did the Secretary of State take into account the 52 per cent. increase in crime in West Cumbria? Does he understand that many of my constituents now live in fear? A couple of extra police officers on the streets of Workington will not begin to deal with that problem. Can he assure me that the problem will be sorted out in these assessments when calculations are made in the future?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decides on establishment issues—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not enough.

Mr. Heseltine: Then I ask him the question that I asked one of his colleagues: by how much extra is he authorised to commit the Labour party to increase expenditure on law and order? That is the sharp issue.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a further increase in police establishment of 1,000 people, which is included in the figures that we have announced. That increase is in addition to the 16,500 who have joined the ranks since 1979.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend has made his statement with force and logic, which I welcome. However, how is it right that local authorities that have many tourists and overnight visitors will benefit from an augmented SSA, whereas local authorities such as Hillingdon, which have ports of entry to which many refugees come, especially unaccompanied refugee children who are a large burden on the social services and housing departments, do not get special provision?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend may have heard my reply a few moments ago. Those are different factors within the SSA mechanism. One is dealt with by social indicators, whereas the other is dealt with by having regard to the number of visitors, bearing in mind the fact that one is dealing with tourist authorities. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that distinctions are drawn in that way. I am not unsympathetic to his point, but I point out that there is a far wider issue about the number of people coming to this country illegally who are seeking asylum and who are a potential cost to the local authority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has addressed the matter recently in the House, and doubtless he will continue to do so.

Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend has said that this is a consultative document. He has also said that the £15 million rule comes in, whereby councils such as South Bedfordshire district council could be capped. Will he consider its position sympathetically? It is an authority that lost money in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and it is in a state of anxiety. May I have an assurance that it will be


some weeks before my right hon. Friend takes a final decision about whether South Bedfordshire should be capped?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will know that, by statute, I am bound to listen to all arguments that are put to me. I assure him that I will do that, although I cannot say what my conclusion will be after those representations. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's authority will wish to put its point.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at authorities such as Lancashire, with a spending budget of £1 billion? If such authorities are obliged to make reductions in expenditure, will he ensure that they do not make them in the areas that are the most painful and that will attract the most publicity? I have in mind especially statements of educational needs and the number of policemen. Would my right hon. Friend consider ring-fencing the police budget to ensure that that does not happen?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be an extraordinarily cynical and reprehensible way for a local authority to behave, and I very much hope that we shall not see examples of it. It would not be appropriate for me to try to take legislative powers to ring-fence individual programmes of local authorities in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined, although I very much share his anxiety.

Mr. David Blunkett: Have we not heard this afternoon a new definition of a Tory Euro-enthusiast—one who would rather have our money directed by the Germans and French than by a democratically elected Labour Government?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, having encouraged local authorities to bid for city challenge, expenditure generated locally to meet that next year will be subject to the capping rules, and that expenditure that has to be raised and spent locally over and above any central Government grant for the introduction of the council tax will be subject to capping? Will not the real victims of capping be children in schools and the elderly in need of social services?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I reject both the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I must confess that I looked in the eye of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and thought of him running this country. Perhaps even my imagination was carried away by the idea that he should govern us in any circumstances. I can think of nothing worse than such a horror scenario.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will be as aware as I am that the city challenge arrangements have been carefully considered by my Department and that the urban grant arrangements will be dealt with in the way that I was able to announce very recently. Only 10 per cent. of them will count within the revenue of the local authority, so there is considerable assistance, in that we have increased the disallowance to 90 per cent. There are similar and helpful arrangements for the capital programmes also. The issue of city challenge has been dealt with sympathetically, and I am delighted that it has.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I shall take points of order, but will hon. Members please bear in mind the fact that there is to be an important Scottish debate in which many hon. Members wish to participate?

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you please inform the House whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has given notice that he intends to make an oral statement to the House this week about the three applications for self-governing trust status from three Scottish hospitals? I have a constituency interest because one, the Royal Scottish National hospital, is based in my constituency. The Minister of State who has responsibility for health matters in Scotland is on public record as saying that the Secretary of State would make a public announcement before the end of this month. If there is to be a parliamentary announcement, that leaves only today and tomorrow, bearing in mind the fact that, on Fridays, most hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will be back at work in their constituencies.
Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker to try to ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to make an oral statement, because this place is already rife with suggestions that there may simply be a statement to the media with or without a reply to a planted written question, which would be completely unacceptable in terms of parliamentary accountability. Will you, Mr. Speaker, try to ensure that we have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State on this important matter either today or tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that it is not up to me to require a statement to be made to the House. I have a rather different function. However, as the Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Treasury Bench, I am sure that he will have heard what has been said.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how, in the light of the point that has just been made, hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies can get Ministers to treat the principle of their accountability to the House of Commons with some degree of respect. They tell us that the House of Commons adequately serves the interests of the people of Scotland, but they make statements outside the House.
We have a Second Reading later today of a Scottish Bill, but two other Bills that are being considered in Committee at the moment, on the council tax and the schools tax, relate to Scotland and should be separate Scottish Bills, but they are not. We do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and can question that unaccountable bunch of Ministers only once a month. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to try to ensure that Ministers are effectively brought to account in the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me. The arrangement of business is a matter for the Government and the usual channels. It is not my responsibility.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I be allowed to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two of the replies given to the House earlier today by the Secretary of State for Employment? Not once but three times, the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly sought to interfere with the way in which the Select Committee on Employment deals with its business. On the third occasion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually invited the Leader of the Opposition to advise the Labour members of that Committee.
Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that Select Committees are, by their very nature, Back-Bench Committees and that their role is to scrutinise the work of the Executive? Therefore, would it not be outrageous if any Minister or, for that matter, any Leader of the Opposition—I am sure that my right hon. Friend is too wise to do this—should seek to interfere with the work of the Select Committees? Might we, as a House, be encouraged to tell the Secretary of State to keep his paws out of the work of the Select Committees?

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Is it really further to it?

Mr. Cook: indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: Very well; I shall deal with it.

Mr. Cook: It is further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) anticipated the point of order that I was seeking to raise with you. Further to what he has said, do you agree that for a Select Committee to have decided to ponder the proposals of an Opposition should they achieve power after the next election would be an abuse of parliamentary resources and parliamentary time?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what goes on in Select Committees—

Mr. Tom Clarke: Oh yes, you are.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it is not a matter of order here— [Interruption.] No, it is not. It is not a matter of order in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Monklands. West (Mr. Clarke) has stated the factual position. Select Committees are independent and consist of Back-Bench Members. This is a matter for them.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter which I was unable to raise with you earlier, and request a statement. A serious matter has come to my notice at the Christiana Hartley maternity hospital in Southport, where there has been an unfortunate disposal of foetuses from aborted children, to which the staff have objected. I wonder whether I may seek your indulgence to request a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on that most important matter.

Mr. Speaker: Again, that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health. There is an Adjournment debate on that very subject tonight, and if the hon. Member is present, he may be able to participate in it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Secretary of State for Health said whether he intends to make a statement to the House on the leaked documents about the trusts? You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the great interest in the matter and that one national newspaper is on the verge of naming the American—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady knows, that matter is before the Privileges Committee. We cannot pre-empt anything that it will decide about the matter. The matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House now.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication whatever that the Attorney-General intends to make a statement to the House on the decision by the European Court of Human Rights? The Government have lost an important case. They tried to stop three newspapers publishing extracts from "Spycatcher". The European Court has ruled that the Government were wrong and has awarded costs against the Government.
On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have deprecated the discussion of matters outside the House—obviously this matter will receive much comment—while the House of Commons does not have the opportunity to debate them. Much money has been spent out of public funds, and this sorry saga has continued for six years. Surely the Attorney-General should come here today or on Wednesday and make a statement about how much money the Government have spent on the case, and why they decided to involve themselves in this farce in the first place, and to give Members of Parliament the opportunity to give their views.

Mr. Speaker: All the points of order raised with me this afternoon have been matters which are the responsibility of the Government. They are not my responsibility. I can, therefore, only repeat what I have already said in reply to previous points of order. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for the Government. I am sure that it will have been heard by them.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions on statutory instruments.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2583) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1680) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Electricity (Non-Fossil Fuel Sources) (England and Wales) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2490) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill builds on one of the Government's greatest but least acknowledged successes—the explosion of opportunity that we have triggered in further and higher education. The Government are strongly committed to the principle that places in higher and further education should be available to all those who wish to take up the opportunities and are able to benefit from them. The proposals in the Bill underline that strong commitment by improving further the quality and quantity of Scottish further and higher education.
The Bill is also the latest of many examples of our determination to break down the barriers to opportunity which remain in our society. The Bill contains proposals to abolish the completely artificial binary line, which has outlived its usefulness. We are also determined to take away the misplaced distinction between a vocational and an academic education. We shall sweep away those outdated barriers to progress. I have no doubt that, as a result, the traditional Scottish dream of opportunity for all is closer than ever to fulfilment.
As we embark on the European single market in 1993, it is imperative that that dream of opportunity for all is made real. There is no doubt that our economic well-being will depend more than ever on a well-educated population enjoying the opportunity of access to education from which everyone can benefit. As our colleges and universities continue to broaden their horizons to Europe and beyond, Scotland and her people will benefit from those reforms. It is no longer a question of matching the best in Britain. Our universities and colleges must match the best in Europe and the world.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State speaks about a dream of opportunity for all and, of course, some aspects of the Bill will be broadly welcome, but how can he speak about genuine opportunity for all students when his Government are pursuing the student loans system, which is causing grievous hardship throughout Scottish academic institutions?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The student loans system gives to the student the advantage of an extra source of funding on favourable terms. That enables him to have more resources at his disposal. Indeed, the resources available to students have increased in the past two years by about 25 per cent.—substantially more than the rate of inflation—as a result of the provision of student loans.
In seeking to match the best in Europe and the world, universities and colleges must maintain and, where necessary, improve standards. The further expansion of education to which we are giving the go-ahead will not

lead to a dilution of quality and standards. Quite the reverse. The opportunities and flexibility that we are giving to universities and colleges should make standards improve still further.
Moreover, education enjoys an intrinsic value which goes far beyond the workplace and enables individuals better to fulfil their potential and make a worthwhile contribution as citizens. It is the ladder of opportunity to which everyone must have access, and I am determined that everyone will.
The Bill gives effect to the plans for the reorganisation of further and higher education contained in the White Papers "Access and Opportunity" and "Higher Education: A New Framework", which were published earlier this year. Those White Papers were widely acclaimed by all the institutions affected. They marked a watershed in Scottish education. The new flexibility and opportunities for development that they will give to our further and higher education institutions will be vital in enabling them to develop and progress to meet the needs of the 21st century.
It is significant that the proposals deal with both further and higher education. Too often, further education is dismissed as being of low status compared with higher education. We aim to change that by setting further education colleges free and establishing them as self-governing bodies. Never again will anyone see further education colleges as second rate.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On what basis does the Secretary of State imply that further education colleges are currently classed as second rate? What evidence does he have that their administration by local authorities has been detrimental to the integration of education in Scotland? Is not there a danger that by taking FE colleges away from local authorities the link between schools and further education, which is an essential component of integrated education planning, will be broken?

Mr. Lang: I agree that it is important to maintain the link to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am certain that we shall achieve that, but I am equally certain that by creating the councils that we have set up and developing the opportunity for further education colleges to be run by councils manned by, among others, local business men, we shall create a new momentum and a new relevance of further education colleges to the needs of the area and its employers.

Mr. John McFall: The point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about integrated education is important. At present, further education colleges are part of an integrated system. When dealing with young pupils with special learning needs, colleges can work alongside social work departments and others, but when the colleges are let loose, that integrated approach will go. The focus of further education colleges could change markedly towards vocational training. Therefore, the needs of those with special learning difficulties could be devalued. The Secretary of State should address that point.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has identified a point that is worth addressing. He is right to raise it. I am confident that the new arrangement whereby college councils run further education colleges will take into account the needs of pupils with learning difficulties. As a result the colleges will work closely with local authorities.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lang: Yes, but then I must press on.

Dr. Hampson: I am sure that the relationship between local authorities and colleges has improved since the days when I lectured in Edinburgh. I remember when l came into the House hearing the same problem highlighted in the English system by the then Secretary of State, Shirley Williams. The fact that the schools and FE colleges were under the same local authority did not guarantee any close relationship. In a circular, she even required FE colleges to inform schools of their addresses, so bad was the relationship.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from considerable personal experience.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: No, not at this stage. I will give way to the hon. Lady shortly.
Part I of the Bill sets out a framework which will enable the further education colleges to work for the first time within a national overview of provision, within which broad strategies can be set, but which allows the maximum delegation to colleges to take quick decisions at local level better to meet the needs of their students and employers.
We aim to place further education colleges on as similar a footing as possible, setting a clear national framework for funding to replace the policies of 12 education authorities. That is not nationalisation, as critics have suggested; nor is it centralisation. It is a means to ensure that maximum devolution of responsibility within an overall coherent strategy—something which further education has hitherto lacked.
Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State a new duty to secure that adequate and efficient provision of further education, which is defined in clause 6. That goes wider than vocational education—important though that is—and includes areas such as access courses to higher education, which open up opportunities for adults to return to education.
Further education colleges have already done much to support that type of course, through the innovative and successful Scottish wider access programme, which we instigated. We shall continue to attach priority to that.
Education authorities will retain a duty for community education. That is important, because concern has been expressed — much of it misconceived—about the future of adult education. Let there be no misunderstanding: we remain fully committed to education for adults. Our proposals aim to increase access and opportunity for school leavers and for adults.
I recognise that further education colleges are important providers of a wide range of courses for adults and that vocational courses and highers for adults are provided outside colleges. That diversity of provision has grown to meet the needs of local communities and it is desirable.
Clause 2 accordingly provides education authorities with the power to provide courses of further education, falling within the definition of clause 6. The Secretary of State will likewise have the power, under clause 4, to fund college boards of management in providing community education.
To safeguard the existing level of provision I have decided that the Secretary of State will fund further education colleges on the basis of the full range of programmes that they offer at present. Education authorities will be funded through the aggregate external finance settlement to provide further education outwith colleges, including community education. That approach is equitable and will allow planning to proceed in those areas, with certainty of funding. It will be for education authorities to decide in what circumstances to offer vocational education and highers. In funding the colleges for community education, the aim will be not to expand overall the current level of provision or to duplicate education authority provision.

Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Secretary of State is talking about finance, can he explain why, since it is possible to identify colleges and to move those on, it is not possible to move on debt charges too? Does he not agree with at least one convener of education, who said that that is like taking away someone's house and asking them to pay the mortgage?

Mr. Lang: That is not a valid comparison. The debt charges are already totally absorbed and would be almost impossible to separate from other debt charges incurred by local authorities.

Mr. Tony Worthington: May I inform the Secretary of State that debt charges for colleges of further education in Scotland are £86 million?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 8 and schedule 1 provide for the duties, powers, composition and proceedings of the boards of management. Underlying those provisions is the principle that it is important to bring into colleges people who are involved with local industry and local affairs. By harnessing their talents, we can ensure that colleges are well managed. I make no apology for the majority of the board being constituted of people with practical experience. The majority of students attend further education colleges because they wish to equip themselves better for employment. The best way to ensure that colleges meet those aspirations is for local employers to be involved.
The new board, with a maximum size of 16, will be smaller than the present college councils, which have a maximum size of 20. The reduced size reflects the governing bodies' new responsibilities. They will be decision-making bodies, akin to the board of management of a company. That is balanced by the need for a range of people with different experiences to be involved. People will not merely be drawn from industry and commerce. In making appointments, regard will be paid to the position of education authorities. There will continue to be areas in which collaboration between education authorities and colleages will be for the benefit of both.
In carrying out their duties under clause 8, the boards of management will have to have regard to the provision of other education in their area. They can do so only by having a dialogue with education authorities and others. That will be important throughout the range of provision, not merely in education for 16 to 18-year-olds. For example, it should be borne in mind that about 62 per cent. of non-advanced students in further education are over the age of 18.
Colleage councils have given people valuable experience in administering delegated functions in colleges. In reconstituting college councils in the transitional period prior to April 1993, I shall aim for a measure of continuity in membership to draw on that experience. It is, therefore, nonsense to suggest, as some have, that because the first appointments will be made by the Secretary of State, boards of management will not represent local interests. I can give an undertaking that they will represent local interests in the same way that college councils do.
Staff, both teaching and non-teaching, are the main asset of further education. On them depends the quality of education that the colleges provide. It is important that they should be in no doubt over their position and clause 11 provides for the automatic transfer of such staff. They will retain their existing pay and conditions of service, including superannuation rights, when they transfer. The negotiation of pay and conditions beyond 1 April 1993 will be a matter for boards of management, staff and their representatives to determine. The Government have no intention of interfering with that process; nor will I place any bar on a national framework being established, if that is the decision of those involved.
We aim to take steps between now and April 1993 to prepare staff for the colleges' new status. Newsletters will be produced keeping them informed of developments and training resources provided. I will also be looking to college boards of management to attach a higher and continuing priority to staff development generally. In addition, grants totalling £2·3 million will be made available to college councils in 1992–93 to enable them to prepare for their independence.
In Scotland we have a coherent vocational qualifications system. We aim to improve the status of those qualifications and the way in which they can be made more widely available. Interesting developments are taking place in areas such as the accreditation of prior learning, where knowledge of skills gained on the job can be given credit. That, together with open learning, can ensure that many more benefit from further education and open up new opportunities. Through our funding of the colleges we will aim to stimulate that flexibility.
Part II of the Bill gives effect to our proposed reforms of higher education set out in the White Paper "Higher Education: A New Framework". The Government are justly proud of what we have achieved in higher education in the past decade. Participation in higher education has soared. Numbers in full-time higher education in Scotland have increased by 40 per cent. and are now at record levels. Moreover, that success will continue in the future. We expect those numbers to increase by a further 60 per cent. by the end of the century. In addition, we expect that the participation rate of young Scots entering full-time higher education next year, 1992–93, will exceed 30 per cent. as compared to only 17 per cent. when we came to power. That means that we shall be close to meeting the target which the White Paper envisaged Great Britain achieving by the end of the century. In Scotland, we now expect that the participation rate will reach 46 per cent. by the year 2000. I suggest that that is an outstanding track record and it is one which I am determined to build on.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Secretary of State say more about the future of Robert

Gordon's institute of technology in Aberdeen? Is he aware that the mishandling of the matter by him and his Ministers caused a great deal of concern about its future among academics at the institution? Since the idea was floated during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election that RGIT would meet the criteria for changing into a university, and as nothing in the Bill defines how that will work out, can the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that RGIT will get the status that it so obviously deserves?

Mr. Lang: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that guarantee yet, because we have only just put the criteria out for consultation. I do not anticipate that the consultation process, which will be completed shortly, will lead to much amendment of the criteria, certainly not to any extent that might debar Robert Gordon's institute of technology from qualifying. On the basis of the criteria as published, I am confident that it will qualify. Far from there having been any mishandling, my hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the institute recently and received warm approval for the way in which the Government have proceeded.

Mr. Hughes: There is no point in putting a subject out for consultation when the Minister absolutely refuses to see a deputation of Members of Parliament from the north-east of Scotland and bodies with a locus in education. What sort of consultation is that?

Mr. Lang: That was before we published the criteria. There was not much point in seeing a delegation for consultations on the criteria before they were published. They have now been published and they are subject to consultation. They should enable us to reach a decision on target, before the end of this year.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Mr. Lang: I give way, yet again, to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Now that he has qualified the reply from the Minister of State, who said that there was no purpose in such a meeting, will he agree to meet the deputation as requested?

Mr. Lang: If the deputation thinks it appropriate to reapply, now that the consultation criteria have been published, its application will be considered in the usual way and an appropriate reply will be made. My hon. Friend met RGIT within the past few weeks. I am not sure what further there is for the institute to come and see him about.
Before turning to the detail of the provisions in part II, I should like to make some general points about the principles on which the policies are based. First, we have an important example of the Government's pursuit of devolved decision making and responsibility within the. overall framework of the Union. The maintenance of that wider link is vital, particularly for the universities. The Committee of Scottish University Principals made that point forcefully to me at a meeting on 21 October. Any arrangements that inhibit the free interchange of staff, students and ideas between United Kingdom universities would, over time, have a significantly debilitating effect on our system of higher education and would be particularly


damaging in Scotland. The Government recognise those concerns, which is why our policies are set firmly in the United Kingdom context.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Clause 31(3) deals with the appointment of members to the funding council, which will be from 12 to 15 members strong. In the context of the reference to
persons who appear … to have experience of … or … in … the provision of higher education",
will importance he given to research as well as the administration of higher education? Surely the Secretary of State appreciates that research is a most important element in higher education.

Mr. Lang: Yes, that is certainly an important point which will be borne in mind. Our purpose will be to approach this on a broad base. The hon. Gentleman's concern will be well covered.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: I must press on, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Douglas: Before dealing with the general issues and following the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), can the Secretary of State tell us whether the provision in schedule 6 that he will appoint the first chief executive to the funding council is on all fours with devolution? Will he desist from that appointment until he has other personnel in place? An important ingredient of the old University Grants Committee and the funding council was that they stood as a buffer between politicians and universities. How will that be preserved in the present context?

Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern over the appointment of the chief executive. It is an extremely important appointment. The precedents are that the chairman and chief executive are appointed early. That is necessary to enable the organisation to get under way. I have already had discussions with the university principals about these matters. I am well aware of their views and have assured them that I will approach the matter carefully and cautiously. I recognise the supreme importance of high quality and a broad range of qualifications in all the appointments that we make to the council.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we do not intend to use the snobbism of the word "university" to destroy colleges of excellence, such as Robert Gordon's, merely to enable them to enlarge an empire that is unsustainable and is not educational, as the new department of Edinburgh university announced today seems to do, when the university cannot even support the existing faculties?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend makes a valid and important point. I hope that those institutions that have achieved excellence in their present form will not, on achieving university status, abandon the basis of their excellence. Nor do I envisage that they, in large measure, will do so.
The second general point is that there is absolutely no need for any lack of confidence in our abilities either to provide or to administer higher education in Scotland. We have justified pride in our distinctive traditions. One city, Aberdeen, had as many universities as the whole of

England and Wales for a period of 250 years. In more recent times, the focused and distinctive missions that our central institutions and colleges of education have developed have been an important component of the Scottish pattern of higher education provision—a pattern which has succeeded in sustaining our high and rapidly increasing rates of participation.
Clauses 31 to 37 establish the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and set out its composition and main functions. In general, these clauses mirror the equivalent provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988 for the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On clause 33, is the assessment committee to work in tandem with the English structure or is it to operate as a single council? What is the Secretary of State's reply to those vice-chancellors and principals who have said that if we are to have clause 33 there should be a national joint committee in certain areas, such as medicine, computing and engineering?

Mr. Lang: I would expect the Scottish council to keep in close touch with its counterparts south of the border. That is intrinsic in our approach to higher education. The councils may decide to form some joint committee and it would not be right for me to rule that in or out now. It is important that we can establish a coherent and self-contained council with the capacity to fund higher education in Scotland. In doing so, we should not lose sight of the vital cross-border links, so important to the continuing health and expansion of higher education.
I am pleased to announce to the House that Professor Jack Shaw has agreed to become the chairman and first member of the council. The appointment will commence on 1 April next year and run initially for three years. Naturally, it is subject to the necessary legislative authority. I am grateful to Professor Shaw for his thorough and timely response to my request to examine the criteria to be employed when institutions contemplate a merger. The Universities Funding Council's Scottish committee report on merger criteria was published yesterday and provides a well-researched and careful review. I know that higher education institutions have been keen to see the report and I am confident that it will become the standard reference for those with an interest.
I should make it clear, as does the report, that the initiative on collaboration lies with the institutions and that we generally favour a bottom-up approach to these matters. However, there may be circumstances where either a funding council or the Secretary of State needs to intervene and, again, the report recognises that.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Everyone will wish Professor Shaw well. Can the Secretary of State say a little about the basis of the appointment, in terms of the expectation of time? Obviously, Professor Shaw is a busy and successful man, particularly in the banking world. I am not clear on what basis the appointment has been made.

Mr. Lang: The appointment has been made on the basis that Professor Shaw feels able to devote the necessary time to the job. Given his present experience as chairman of the Scottish committee of the UFC, I think that he is an admirable appointee.
We are working to a challenging timetable. The council must be fully operational from 1 April 1993. It is important that the other members should be in place as soon as possible. Accordingly, the key appointment of chief executive will be advertised shortly. I hope to announce the appointments of the other members early in the new year.
Clause 33 deals with the important matter—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Lang: I am reliably informed that I have already given way 14 times. I had better get on.
Clause 33 deals with the important matter of quality assessment. Quality is a central element of our policy and we are determined that the great expansion of access to higher education that is now under way should continue to be achieved with no threat to standards. Whether one is concerned, like Robbins, with the pool of untapped talent, or like Amis, with the pool of tapped un-talent, is immaterial. The Government are determined that this time more shall not mean less, and we believe that this Bill, building on the experience of the last quarter of a century, gives us the mechanisms we need to secure that end.
The council will set up its own quality assessment unit to monitor and report on the quality of the education provided in our institutions. The unit will be staffed by the transfer of experienced personnel from Her Majesty's inspectorate and from the institutions. It will also draw on the resources of the funding council for England and Wales to fill out its expertise and to ensure parity of standards across the United Kingdom. Pilot assesments of quality in key areas will be under way in the new year. In addition, clause 33 requires the council to establish a quality assessment committee with a majority of academic members to advise on quality isues.
Higher education in Scotland is now more efficient and effective than it has ever been. The increased levels of publicly funded higher education tuition fees have, as intended, provided a strong incentive to institutions to expand efficiently. Also, the greater autonomy that we have granted to the management of our higher education colleges has resulted in greater responsiveness to the needs of students and employers.
The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will be charged with developing fair and objective methodologies for distributing resources to all the Scottish higher education institutions.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Clause 37 gives power to the council to determine the disposal of land. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, regarding the potential opting out of Foresterhill hospital, that there is a dispute over the ownership of the land on which that hospital sits, the title of which belongs to the university of Aberdeen. May we have an assurance that under no circumstances would the council require the university to dispose of the land to any opted-out trust at below market value?

Mr. Lang: The ownership of the land would not appear to be relevant to the Bill. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern with an important local issue, but that is not necessarily affected by this debate.
The commitment we gave in our White Paper last May was to provide an appropriate level of resources to enable further efficient expansion to take place. I am happy to repeat that commitment today.
Accordingly, I can announce to the House that I have decided to increase recurrent funding for the grant-aided colleges by 12 per cent. in 1992–93. I have also increased my programme for capital funding of the colleges by over 20 per cent. Those are substantial increases, well above the projected level of inflation. They are evidence of the Government's continued commitment to higher education, and will allow the buoyant growth in student numbers to continue and to be accommodated.
Clause 36 sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to make conditions on grants to the council. There have been some suggestions that the wording of the clause represents a sinister and unprecedented assault on academic freedom. I find it difficult to understand how such a view could have arisen.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Lang: I must try to make this the last time in my speech that I give way.

Mr. Dewar: Do I take grant-aided colleges to be the central institutions?

Mr. Lang: Yes.
The clause specifically prevents the Secretary of State from attaching conditions that relate to individual institutions, just as the Education Reform Act 1988 does. The revised wording in the clause is necessary to put it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State actually can specify objectives to be met before grant can be paid by the council. That was the result intended in the debates on the 1988 Act. It was also a fundamental aspect of the funding system set out for the UFC by Lord Croham in his review of the UGC.
Clauses 39 to 41 deal with the government and organisation of the current central institutions and colleges of education. As stated in paragraph 93 of the White Paper, the Privy Council will become responsible for the government of all the institutions that will be funded by the new council. Although we shall wish to review the present arrangements in the colleges of education before effecting the transfer, we do not envisage that much change to present organisation or management structures will be required, but transfer of responsibility for these matters to the Privy Council properly reflects the desire to place all higher education institutions in a similar autonomous relationship with the Government.
Before the Privy Council begins that process, though, it is right that we should make a number of changes to relax the present restrictions on the composition of the grant-aided colleges' governing body. Accordingly, I shall shortly make an order to remove the requirement for student and staff representatives on the governing body, and in the case of central institutions to remove the requirement for local authority experience. Those changes will give the governing bodies valuable flexibility in adapting to the demands which their increased autonomy will place on them.
Clause 42 contains the important provision allowing the holder of my office to specify higher education institutions as competent to award degrees. I issued a consultation paper on that question, setting out the


proposed criteria to which I would have regard in reaching judgments on whether degree-awarding powers should he conferred on particular institutions. We have asked for comments by 2 December and I hope to announce my intentions shortly thereafter. In reaching any decisions, I shall have particular regard to the advice of the Council for National Academic Awards that all five of the Scottish technological central institutions merited both taught-course and research degree-awarding powers.
Clause 43 allows institutions to include the word "university" in their title, with the consent of the Privy Council. The White Paper said that the Government had decided that polytechnics, as a mark of their academic maturity and success, would be permitted to adopt the university title if they wished. The consultation paper that I issued also covered the criteria to which we propose to recommend that the Privy Council should have regard in considering whether other institutions should be permitted to use the title. Again, I hope to announce our conclusions in the light of consultations next month.
I should note now, however, that it is disappointing that some have interpreted the extension of the use of the university title as a signal that our polytechnics and colleges might abandon their distinctive vocational missions and overturn their organisational structures, the point to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) referred. Those are successful and valuable institutions in their own right. They have proved their worth. There is no need for them to give up the very basis of their success to achieve the recognition they deserve. It would be extremely foolish of them not to continue to play to their undoubted strengths.

Dr. Hampson: I am interested in the question of titles. I should declare my interest as a consultant to the Association of University Teachers, and the point is of special interest to that body. The clause in the equivalent English measure, clause 73 (3), has an absolute provision that there should he no confusion of names—that where there is an existing university, that point must he considered—but I do not see in the Scottish Bill any such safeguards in terms of avoiding names that are already in being. Why are such safeguards missing from the Scottish measure?

Mr. Lang: I cannot give my hon. Friend a textual comparison word for word as between the Scottish and English measures, but I assure him that it is our objective—it must be the objective of any body applying for university status—to use a name that would not lead to confusion or misunderstanding. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind, and it may be further debated in Committee.
The Bill is a landmark in Scottish education. It gives a long-overdue prominence to further education and releases further education colleges from the strictures of local authority control. They will then be free to maximise their potential to increase participation in tertiary education, to improve standards and to widen access.
The Bill is of tremendous significance to Scottish higher education. It has been warmly welcomed throughout the higher education world in Scotland. It gives new momentum to a further expansion of higher education, while maintaining and building on the outstanding reputation for high standards which our universities presently enjoy.
The Bill provides an opportunity for all. It is another huge step on the way to grasping the glittering prize of higher education for all who are fit and willing to benefit from it. Under our administration, higher education has become a growth industry. With the Bill, the Government have met the university challenge. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I was interested to hear the Secretary of State speak of glittering prizes. I thought that he spoke with a slight air of whimsical nostalgia and I fear that few such prizes await him in the months that lie ahead.
I welcome the Government's decision to implement one of the most important recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report. It has taken them a long time but they have ultimately arrived. They have accepted that on the funding and planning machinery for Scottish universities, as on so many other issues recently, Labour has got it right. To be fair, it is not Labour but STEAC which has got it right. I wish to pay tribute to Donald McCallum and his colleagues for their sterling work in 1985–86 on the STEAC report. It would be unfair to accuse the Government of a U-turn on the matter. Rather, there has been a long, confused period of indecision and even now there is much doubt on exactly what is intended in the university sector. I shall return to that theme later in my speech.
The House will remember that in July 1986 the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), announced bravely a postponed decision on the proposal for an over-arching body responsible for Scottish higher education. He said that the Government were postponing it until such time as they could form a clear view. I did not know whether we had reached that point, but having heard the Secretary of State, I now know that we have not, because he said very little about how the system would operate or about his objectives.
I welcome the fact that over the past three or four years there has been a shift in opinion on a Scottish funding body. In March 1986, Lord Croham, who was then heading a committee reporting on university finance, took evidence in Scotland. He found that two out of the eight universities were in favour of the STEAC recommendation at that time, while the remainder were against it. There is now unanimity. I am sorry that the representative of the Association of University Teachers, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who has read the Bill so carefully, is no longer with us. The AUT in Scotland had grave reservations about the matter but now, as I know from many discussions and a meeting that we had as recently as yesterday, it is now strongly in favour of it. Even the Government have at last caught up. There are good reasons for that change of heart.
The Labour party believes that higher education should be developed as a whole and planned as an entity. One criterion is the national interest and the drive to ensure that the best possible opportunities exist for youngsters leaving school. The Government have a duty to provide a wider choice in higher education and it is in the national interest to have a skilled and educated work force in place. The best way to do so is to have a funding and planning


body, as I understand that the Bill intends, and to recognise and build on the distinctive tradition and contribution of Scottish universities over the years.
I assure the Secretary of State that the Labour party welcomes his decision to try to remove the binary line. It is right to bridge the divide between universities and other institutions of higher education. It has been a barrier to progress and, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), it can be based on prejudice and nothing else. However, such a divide has great and potent power. Those of us who have been lobbied powerfully and persuasively by some of the central institutions interested in university status are left in no doubt about the importance of that prize. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is important that, in making such an adjustment, we abolish the binary divide and do not merely move it and create another artificial division in the world of higher education with a fault line running at a different point across the range.
The problem is to combine excellence with increased access. The two are not incompatible and high standards must be maintained. There is still a gap between the number of people entering higher education in Scotland compared to most of our European competitors. We tend to say that we do well compared with the English, although that comparison is now beginning to blur. We still have an advantage and I am grateful for it, but on the international league table the position is less satisfactory. We still have a massive job to do in Scotland in encouraging students and potential students from areas where economic disadvantage is still a crippling inhibition to academic ambitions. We also have a problem of encouraging women. Although massive strides have been taken, and women are performing much better in the academic world, especially in the later years of school and at university, only 44 per cent. of university students are women and there is clearly some way to go on that issue.
Therefore, we must aim to build both access and high standards and to build on the honourable tradition of our universities. When I was thinking about that—it was perhaps a little whimsical—I remembered when I was a student at Glasgow university and was asked to review a copy of the then new publication by George Davie, the "Democratic Intellect", which looks in great detail at universities in Scotland in the 19th century. I dug out that review out of curiosity. Looking back over a Glasgow university magazine of January 1962 was quite an experience. It said:
On the weekend of 10th–11 th February, Donald Dewar's band of merry men take the high-road once more for Aberoyle, where they are running a weekend school at the Covenanters' Inn.

Mr. John McAllion: Will my hon. Friend let me know which team he supports?

Mr. Dewar: Memories, memories.
The review went on:
The speaker is Richard Marsh, MP, the subjects … 'The Common Market', and the overall cost (which includes transport, dinner dance, accommodation and all meals) two guineas.
I had forgotten that there was a day when the more elegant parts of the Labour movement counted in guineas.
In that review I was arguing that the breadth and range in Scottish education should be retained. I may have taken

the rather romantic view of the glories of the MA (Ord), but I still hold to that general thesis. The Scottish system should not be a poor copycat of the system which exists south of the border or any other part of the world, and the traditional strengths should not be eroded.
I hope that my speech will spark off a useful exchange with the Minister of State when he replies to the debate. The Bill contains an outline of a system which, with regard to universities, has much to be said for it. The question remains of how and whether it will work. There was remarkably little detail on that in the Secretary of State's speech. Expansion clearly has resource implications and the bills must be paid. We are to have Napier college and Glasgow college of technology, and I understand that the Robert Gordon institute of technology and Paisley college are anxiously awaiting the starting signal.
I enjoyed the Minister of State's little foray into the north. Embarrassingly, it happened to coincide with the by-election at Kincardine and Deeside. It is a little like the story of the dog that did not bark—a meeting between the Minister of State and the Tory candidate which did not take place. Full of wide-eyed innocence, the Minister of State told a meeting at the Robert Gordon institute of technology that he could not think how anyone could imagine that the criteria for university status would not be met by that college. As we all know, there were good reasons for fears. The Labour party welcomes the fact that, from the Secretary of State's speech, it seems that both the Robert Gordon institute of technology and Paisley college are now on the list. I hope that if they come through they will make a worthwhile and distinguished contribution to Scottish universities.
Will the Minister of State turn his mind to a few simple and basic questions? They may be pedestrian questions, but I do not know the answers to them and, although I have earnestly inquired from people in the university world at a variety of levels, they do not seem to be clear about the answers either. How will the Scottish higher education funding council deliver? The binary divide cannot be abolished simply by diktat. One has only to look at Universities Funding Council expenditure to see the gap which existed between the funding of universities and the polytechnics and central institutions. The new universities—potentially four in Scotland and perhaps more to come—will expect to rise to the standards of their peer group. They will expect to level up, not to drive university standards down. That raises fundamental problems and basic questions. This is no more than an enabling Bill and tells us little. I do not want the Minister of State to give a deadpan defence of a system that has been set up by Ministers who, as yet, have no idea how it will work. I hope that we shall be given a precise description.
I certainly intend to move the motion to pass the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. It would be a uniquely useful opportunity. As far as I know, that procedure has not been used on a Scottish Bill since it has been in existence. I know that many people—whether from within the Association of University Teachers, principals, vice-chancellors or officials at some of the colleges and universities—who would like to use the Select Committee procedure grafted on to the normal Standing Committee to probe and establish exactly how the system will work. I do not say that in a partisan spirit, but I cannot think of a more suitable Bill for that procedure. I hope that between now and the Division the Secretary of State will


think about that and the credit that would befall him were he to give way on that point and persuade his colleagues not to resist the motion.
There are eight universities in Scotland at present. There are more university places than could be expected on any population ratio. We have enjoyed a higher percentage of the Universities Funding Council—and, before that, the University Grants Committee—budget than our population share. If the Government were to follow the unpleasant moderate habit of threatening a reduction to per capita allocation, it would amount to the loss of an entire university. How are we to build in protection against that possibility? How are we to allow increased access and continue to grant places to students from outside Scotland? Some 20 per cent. of students following degree courses are not domiciled in Scotland. I consider that to be a strength, not a weakness, provided there are places for Scottish students who want to take them. At present, we export 4,500 students to English universities.
All those advantages raise practical questions that must be answered soon. The Bill merely states:
As far as the funding of the higher educational institutions themselves is concerned, the total in Scotland would not vary materially because of the provisions of this Bill.
I understand that, but it begs an enormous number of questions. We are creating a totally new system arid we must know how it is to be defined. Will the Minister state how the budget of the new funding council will be calculated? I am not asking for a figure as that would be unreasonable, and I would not expect him to be able to give one, but it is important that he should give some of the methodology. Am I right in assuming that the total amount will come partially from the former UFC expenditure on Scottish institutions and the remainder from Scottish Office expenditure on central institutions? Can the Secretary of State confirm that? Will there be an increase in the total Scottish Office budget to take account of the new higher education responsibilities in funding? Will the procedure be that, on that basis, an annual total will emerge from the bargaining within the Scottish Office and then be handed over for distribution to the new funding council?
I hope that I am right in saying—I have certainly been advised that this is so— that in general terms a Scottish university spends about two thirds of its UFC money on teaching, and one third on research. Some of my hon. Friends know a great deal about the subject, and I know that the research funding is formidably important. In 1989–90, the UFC distributed to universities in the United Kingdom £860 million in research support. That sum is vastly greater than the comparable figure for research councils, which contributed only about £260 million. May I assume that the research councils will continue to operate on the United Kingdom basis?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend cannot make that assumption.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend says that I cannot make that assumption. Perhaps the Minister of State can arbitrate on that.
More importantly, will the equivalent of the present enormous amount of UFC research money be included in the new funding council's budget and will the council be responsible for its distribution? Will the UFC's successor, the funding council in England, have any jurisdiction in

Scotland? If that research funding were excluded, it would seem that the new Scottish council would be involved financially only in teaching costs. That would represent an artificial and damaging separation of research and teaching which would weaken the system. I have outlined at some length a number of fundamental issues and I genuinely expect the Minister to try to answer them.
I am puzzled that there is no definition or reference in the Bill to a planning function for the new council. What influence will it have over policy? It may contain an inherent power, but it is important for the Minister to say more about that. Enormously important decisions will have to be taken about the new universities, such as how they are to be integrated, how funds are to be distributed, and how we are to respond to the Howie report, which will presumably lead to major changes in higher school education within the next two or three months.
The new council has a remit to plan higher education as a whole, but will it be able to make the changes that it considers necessary? Let us suppose that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council has reservations about the distribution system, which is based on the assumption that the cash follows the student. Would it be able to vary that and introduce a new system of bidding for cash among Scottish universities? Could it alter the selectivity system for the distribution of research funds—assuming that the UFC research element will be included in the new funding council's budget?
There is keen interest in a university for the highlands, which would almost certainly have to be built in existing colleges and may have to evolve over several years. The Labour party has expressed sympathy with the idea, and would like to see action. However, we must ensure that it is a carefully worked-out scheme. Would it fall within the remit of the new funding organisation?
Another important point which the Minister may have anticipated involves the importance of the relationship between higher education and Government, and brings me conveniently—if that is the right word—to clause 48. The language of that clause is stark and direct, and appears on the face of it to give the Secretary of State unlimited and unbridled power to dictate. It is important that the Secretary of State should say a little about its significance.
There is no equivalent to the English clause 77(2), which relates specifically to financial considerations. Some people have tried to take comfort from the fact that such an omission provides a negative safeguard for Scottish higher education, but I remain sceptical. I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not address that problem, which has been raised with me by almost everyone with whom I have discussed the Bill. I should have thought that he would want to take action to allay the genuine fears about what the Scottish Office is doing.
The Secretary of State must accept, although he may not like it, that old wounds and memories of the 1988 argument in England still remain. It was then thought by those who were threatened that an open assault was being launched on academic freedom, and the Government were forced to retreat. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but time and again it has been put to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that the present proposal would take us back to the 1988 argument in a way that would be disastrous for confidence and for the relationship between central Government and higher education.

Dr. Godman: I am worried about the measure. If a funding council decided, on principle, to disregard such a directive, presumably the Secretary of State could dismiss its officers.

Mr. Dewar: The position is clear. If a direction is given, there is a legal duty on the funding council to accept that direction. Obviously, I would expect a funding council to work within the framework of the law—

Dr. Godman: Or resign.

Mr. Dewar: Or resign, if it did not wish to be involved in what it saw as a fundamental mistake. But if that measure is on the statute book, it is obviously something that we have a duty to investigate.
No doubt I shall be told by the Secretary of State that that is a routine provision, a fallback power of last resort. He may argue that he is merely paying an unnecessary price for previous convictions and that the fears are groundless, but I am not convinced. Perhaps the Minister should read the leader in The Guardian last week, which held that
ministers have inserted a clause into the latest Higher Education Bill which would so extend their right to intervene that academic freedom would effectively be finished.".
That is probably an overstatement, but the very fact that such a view can be expressed from that area makes it imperative that the Secretary of State should deal with that point.
I welcome—it would be churlish not to—what the Secretary of State said about funding for central institutions. That is helpful and long overdue, particularly on the capital budget. I have not had time to digest or examine the details of his speech, but it is unfortunate that central institution boards should now lose the staff and student places in particular. It is an odd proposal, particularly as schedule I contains a particular obligation for the boards of further education colleges to have elected representatives from the staff and students. If that is right for further education colleges, I am not clear why the Secretary of State should suddenly have announced that there will be no protected right for staff and student representation on the board of central institutions.
That will be taken as a gloomy opening chapter to the new system introduced by this legislation. My instinct is that it is wrong, it will be resented and it will sour the atmosphere. I should be interested to hear from colleagues on the Committee what kind of detailed explanations the Secretary of State gives at a later stage.
Now I come briefly, briskly but importantly to the other section of the Bill—the objectionable and misconceived proposals for further education. They were always predictable and they are certainly mean-spirited. We know that some time ago the Government decided to remove responsibility for funding further education from local authorities and now they are coming back to complete what I regard as a fairly brutal piece of surgery.
There is no justification for the proposals. They are incompatible with the spirit of what the Secretary of State is trying to do elsewhere in the Bill. He is trying to implement the STEAC over-arching concept. he is trying to accept that we have an integrated higher education sector, that there is an emphasis on planning and close co-operation with our schools. There can be no argument but that that is the way forward. If the objective is joint action, if there is to be co-operation, I genuinely do not see

why we suddenly need to fragment into individual units the further education sector in the way that is proposed. Each one has been floated off in a way for which no real argument was advanced.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is not the Secretary of State trying to take control of education away from local authorities so that he and his Ministers can implement policies for which they have no support and for which they cannot be called to account?

Mr. Dewar: The sad conclusion is that at the heart of the matter is Ministers' dislike and suspicion of local democracy and what local authorities stand for.
I cannot expect the Minister of State to give a great deal of detail, but when he replies I hope that he will deal in passing with, for example, this week's press reports that there is a possibility of non-elected quangos, non-elected boards, taking over the entire responsibility of education authorities. It would take only a sentence for the Minister of State to kill off that latest crazy proposal emerging from the dark recesses of the Scottish Conservative party and it is extremely important that he does so. In fact, I should be prepared to give way to the Secretary of State if he would rise to say that, whatever may be on the agenda, that is not.
Well, there we are. I am not entirely surprised, but I give the Secretary of State fair warning that such a proposal, such centralisation, with the power in the hands of the appointed body and the Secretary of State, will be resented by people of every political persuasion in Scotland and many who do not consider themselves to be involved in politics at all. If that is the way in which the Tory party seeks to climb back from the abyss, the Secretary of State's logic is perverse.
I finish by asking one or two questions about further education. Why is no buffer authority being proposed in Scotland for further education? Why is there no further education funding council as there is in England? I have no objection to commercial and industrial involvement in the colleges. The world of industry and business has an interest in day release courses, higher national certificates and training places. They have much to contribute. But the Bill cannot be described as an exercise in devolution, certainly with regard to further education colleges. Although there will be independent boards dominated by local business interests, there will he a concentration and centralisation of power in the hands of the Scottish Office, and that is unmistakable.
The Minister of State must say something about the position of local authorities. We were told originally that they would have a discretionary power to provide further education facilities, but only for social and recreational services; it was limited. I notice that the Department of Education and Science south of the border says that local authorities can, at their discretion, supply any and all kinds of further education. Will that be the case in Scotland, or is it limited in the way we understood originally? Local authorities will still have a duty to supply what is described as further education other than that defined in the Bill. I am genuinely not clear what that means. Perhaps the Minister of State will define it by example—I think that that is the easiest way.
It is not devolution—I stress this—as the Minister of State seemed to be claiming on Radio Scotland's "Good Morning Scotland" programme this morning, or so I am


told: it is centralisation. The Secretary of State will hold the purse strings. He can create new colleges and merge or close existing ones. Under clause 4, it is the Secretary of State who meets the bills. That must be a cause for concern. In constant terms, expenditure on colleges of further education has increased from 1979–80 to 1989–90 from £179 million to £244 million. We must maintain some momentum if additional access and the bridging into higher education in a more formal sense is to be real. For the Secretary of State simply to say that he will fund on the basis of a full range of courses offered begs every question and gives no detail.
In addition, there is the question of the make-up of the boards of those colleges. I have already referred to the domination of industrial and commercial interests. If I read schedule 1 aright, once the board's have been set up initially they will be self-appointing and self-generating. I am not encouraged to say that in that sense they will, to quote the Secretary of State, be
akin to the board of a company.
I know that the Secretary of State will think that it is special pleading for old friends and old connections, but it is clear from schedule 1 that, when considering appointments, there is a duty to consider people who have an interest in the work of a college, having regard to the interests of the education authority. But if one looks at the arithmetic more closely, that may be as few as two places. There is no guarantee that anyone from the education authority needs to be appointed at all.
Whatever one might think about education authorities and their record, the need for close co-operation between the further education colleges and the schools system is something about which there can be no argument at all. To remove any sort of right to representation in the way schedule 1 presently does is surely not a positive advertisement for co-operation which is supposed to be the basis of the new system.
The proposals for further education in the Bill are petty, unsettling and counter-productive and we shall vote against them tonight. There is about the whole concept a startling lack of any mission statement—any definition of the spirit in which the new Scottish funding councils or further education colleges are to approach their tasks. There is the outline of a structure in the council for universities, but no indication of what that council must do or any mention of a planning role.
Even the Bill's definition of higher education is strangely limited. Clause 32 makes it clear only that the test is reaching a higher standard than necessary for the Scottish certificate of education or the general certificate of education. That does not seem a satisfactory way of approaching the task, and certainly undervalues the enormous challenges to be met in our universities, central institutions, and higher education generally. The vision required is far greater than that shown by the Government or by the Secretary of State and his Ministers.
The problems at a practical level are there for all to see. I mention as an example the crisis over university pay and conditions. Last year, lecturers received an increase of 6·4 per cent. when the employers themselves accepted that 16 per cent. would be more realistic. Short-term contracts, blocked promotion prospects and collapsing morale are massive and real difficulties in our universities.
Reference has already been made—and there will be many more such references—to the problems facing

students. They include the erosion of grants over the years and the specious loans scheme, which the Minister inadequately defended a few moments ago.
The university title must not be an empty honour or a doubtful opportunity to compete with established rivals for inadequate funding. That will be the danger and threat under the present Government if the Treasury has its way. The basis of the system can be strengthened by reform, but it must not be eroded—as could happen if there is insufficient commitment, and if more is not heard about the Government's willingness to fund the system and to provide the resources that it needs.
The vision must be there and the resources committed if the potential is to be realised. There is undoubtedly a need for a new approach and a change of direction that the present discredited Administration cannot deliver. The Bill provides such an opportunity, but I suspect that it will be left to be exploited by the next Government of another party.

Sir Hector Monro: It is not uncommon for me to find myself batting first wicket down to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but his performance today was peculiarly passive. He was scratching around to find any reason to vote against the Bill. I warmly welcome it—as do universities, polytechnics, centrally funded colleges, and the principals and staff of colleges of technology and of further education. About the only people against the Bill are Opposition Members.
The amendment in the names of Labour Members is the wettest that I have ever seen. I imagine that the hon. Members responsible had to wear wellington boots when they drafted it. It is the very least that they could table in order to vote against the Bill.
The Liberal Democrats' amendment is even less authoritative. They apparently found it more difficult still to find a reason for opposing the Bill. If they are so keen on all forms of assembly and devolution, one wonders why they are not prepared to allow power to be devolved to college councils. It is a very disappointing start to a Second Reading debate to find an Opposition who are so mealy-mouthed, and who look for difficulties where none exists.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Sir Hector Monro: No, the hon. Gentleman has already intervened about four times. He can make his own speech later—there will be plenty of time.
People say that nostalgia is not what it used to be, but I cannot help but recollect when, as Minister responsible for education, I introduced the raising of the school leaving age to 16 and had to find teachers, and roofs to put over the heads of primary and secondary school pupils. One can easily see how far education has advanced over the years. It has been transformed, and is today a very different world from that of 20 or 30 years ago.
Scotland has a long tradition of academic excellence, and it is right to build reforms on those foundations. The Bill is important not only for what it directly says about education but about the administration and structure of university and further education in the future. It sets the tone for many years ahead.
A great deal of detail will have to be considered in Committee.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman be serving on the Committee?

Sir Hector Monro: I will, and I am looking forward to it. I do not know why some right hon. and hon. Members object to working on the Committee stage of a Bill. I think that it is the most interesting part of our parliamentary work.
The Committee will be able to consider points that have been made by the Scottish Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Mr. Dewar: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has a good Committee record, and always takes a close interest.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): He has to do so.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister suggests that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has no choice, but I give him due credit.
The hon. Gentleman may recall that I suggested that a Special Standing Committee should sit for three sessions on a Select Committee basis before the Standing Committee got down to work. Does he agree that would be both welcomed by the educational world in Scotland and a good investment for parliamentary procedures?

Sir Hector Monro: It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure when it examined in detail the advantages or otherwise of having a Special Standing Committee. As one who was so involved in the Scottish Standing Committee, I was somewhat reluctant to adopt that proposal, because one likes to deal with such matters oneself. Given that the Bill is the principal legislation for Scotland this Session, it seems right to get Scottish Back Benchers involved right from the start.
I do not mean to be dogmatic, but the hon. Member for Garscadden must remember that we have not tried such a procedure before. Standing Orders allow for such a Special Standing Committee, but I have yet to be convinced that it would be better than the conventional Standing Committee procedure. I do not hold hard and fast to that view, but the hon. Gentleman asked for my opinion.
The Standing Committee will also be able to consider representations from those representing the mentally handicapped, the question of university status, and the application—which will be considered at the appropriate moment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—by the Dundee institute of technology.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his earlier comment that few people find difficulty with the Bill? Some right hon. and hon. Members, and perhaps even the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) himself, have received the views of the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, whose brief makes this crucial point:
Sir Roy Griffiths identified the multiplicity of agencies and the lack of proper co-ordination as one of the key failures in community care policy.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that heavyweight opinion?

Sir Hector Monro: I mentioned the mentally handicapped because I read that very brief this morning. That is an important Committee point, but perhaps not

one to be debated in detail now. Tonight we are dealing with the broad brush of the Second Reading of the Bill, to which I give a general welcome.
The Bill places great emphasis on higher and vocational training and of welding the two closer than they are at present. In recent years, great emphasis has rightly been placed on training, and its financing has been taken over to a large extent in Scotland by local enterprise companies, Scotvec, for which I have a high regard, and other organisations. It is disappointing that Opposition Members and local authorities should be so ready to criticise the provision of training places in Scotland. Things are going too well. It will, of course, take a little time for Scottish Enterprise to get over its teething troubles, but it is coping with the misunderstandings, and it has the finance. I am sure that there will be many fewer hiccups next year.
I welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement of a substantial increase in funding: that will provide a springboard for the new board of management. A few months ago, it was said that the Dumfries and Galloway regional training unit would close next year, without the detailed consultation with the local enterprise company that I considered essential—as, I am sure, did my right hon. Friend. Now, however, it seems that places will be available, and that the opportunities will be there.
In a very good speech last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that more and better training is now available than ever before. I give the Government full credit for providing all these opportunities for boys and girls in Scotland. The Bill, however, is about freedom—the freedom for college councils, which will become boards of management, to determine their own destiny within financial guidelines. It is crucially important for them to become independent.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman read the letter sent by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics to the Secretary of State, or the letter sent by the Scottish vice-principals? Both letters warn that the expanded powers conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 36 could be used to threaten academic freedom. Those points were made with some force. Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend?

Sir Hector Monro: It is always possible to misread legislation. Why should we always look on the black side? Why not see the positive, constructive way forward? If the boards of management behave responsibly, there should be no conflict between them and the Department. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman seems to be looking for difficulties that do not exist.
In my view, the college councils have already proved successful—and a credit to the Government, who introduced the system not so long ago. I am told that they can now reach a decision at a single meeting: they no longer have to go back to the education committee, or to secure approval for the minutes by a full council. I do not criticise the local authorities, which have done a fine job in establishing colleges of technology. They have built them up from scratch and provided the necessary staff and facilities, and thousands of students have gained qualifications and excellent jobs as a result. I merely want us to make what already exists even better.
It is understandable that local authorities are reluctant to lose control of the colleges that they have built up. In Committee, however, we should consider the link between further education and the education authority—the liaison, or co-ordination, or whatever hon. Members want to call it. There must be a follow-through between secondary school courses and the new college management structure. As long as good will is maintained, I do not think that that will be difficult to achieve. I do not think that we need a formal, statutory link between the education authority and the board of management.
My constituency contains two excellent institutions, which rightly wish to maintain their distinctive characteristics. Dumfries and Galloway college of technology offers a wide choice of courses, and Barony agricultural college is in the forefront of Scottish agricultural education: it is involved in fish farming, deer farming and many other enterprises. I have talked to those colleges, and both are pleased with the Bill. Their college councils are working well, and the colleges are happy for them to be converted into boards of management at the appropriate time. They should be able to continue their excellent work; a college is only as good as its staff, as others have pointed out.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned finance—perhaps the main issue for the education authorities. The authorities have invested millions of pounds in colleges, and feel that they are due some compensation. What about the loan charges? I heard my right hon. Friend's reply, and no doubt the point will be discussed in detail in Committee. I feel, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State should emphasise the Bill's provision for up-front financial support for the establishment of the system up to April 1983. That is when the college councils and, subsequently, the boards of management take over from the education authorities, and the new system of payment of salaries and costs will be introduced. A good deal of computer work will be needed, as the two systems will run in parallel for a while. I know that my right hon. Friend has allowed a certain sum, but all local authorities will want to know whether that is enough.
I am very pleased about the introduction of funding councils for the universities. I trust that my right hon. Friend will leaven their membership—which will, of course, be heavily biased towards academic considerations—with some commercial and industrial representatives, who would, I think, bring useful experience to bear.
We are on the right road. Staff are important, but students are equally important. More and more people are attending universities and colleges in Scotland, and it is clear from the statistics that they are receiving the courses they want. That increase in numbers belies the claim that the loan system deters students; I think that it has done the opposite. When the new administration takes over the colleges in 1993. I take it that all student loans will come from the Scottish Office rather than a proportion coming from local authority bursaries and other means of local authority funding.
The Bill holds out great hope for the future. I am confident that it will lead to an even higher quality of education in Scotland. I wish it well.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will forgive me if I do not comment on what he said. As I may not chair the First Scottish Standing Committee, since I am participating in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, I shall be unable to listen to his often distinctive and independent views on a particular matter and what should be done about it. I hope that the independence of mind that he often demonstrates in Committee will be demonstrated again tonight. I hope that he will vote for the Special Standing Committee procedure that is to be recommended to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
The aim of the Bill is supposed to be to improve participation in and the quality of higher and further education in Scotland. That sounds good and it is to be welcomed. However, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that it is an attempt to blame all our education and economic ills on defective education and training instead of on too little investment and too little Government support for industry and the infrastructure. Nevertheless, I welcome worthy developments, whatever the motive. The weakness of the Bill is that it is all about mechanism and nomenclature instead of about planning and resources.
I hope that the Minister of State, who is engaged in a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), will not say when he winds up the debate that we are asking for money to be thrown at the problem. In education, it is a case either of providing more resources or of accepting that if numbers go up the quality will go down.
There comes a point at which institutions, if they had any fat to burn off, have long since done so. Cumbernauld college in my constituency is an example. Its information technology equipment, bought with a special grant from the education authority, is dated and coming to the end of its working life. There is no way that the college will be able to replace it from revenue.
The restriction on local government expenditure in general and on education in particular has produced institutions so lean that their ribs show. No amount of changing who they are responsible to, or who sits on their governing bodies, will enable them to provide for more students, more flexibility and a higher quality of tuition. For that we need more resources. Nothing in the Bill suggests that there is any intention to provide them.
That basic weakness apart, the Bill has some strange features. Apparently, there are to be concurrent powers, though not concurrent duties, given to the Scottish Office and the education authorities. That would appear to be an effort to allow education authorities to provide for their local populations as they see fit. But is it? If they decide to spend on adult education, for example, will they find themselves council charge capped for putting up their charges to fund discretionary services? When the Minister of State has finished talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who apparently has crossed the Floor, perhaps he will——

Mr. Ernie Ross: He is just trying out the seat over there.

Mr. Hogg: I think he looks very distinguished. It is only a matter of weeks until he will be sitting there.
The provision of full-time courses is an important criterion for the eligibility of institutions to call themselves universities. That is strange, as the Government's stated policy is to provide education more flexibly, to meet the needs and convenience of students. The mode of learning has nothing to do with the intellectual level of study, which should surely be the criterion. We need an explanation. Do the Government believe that part-time study is rather second rate, despite the very good examples of such provision by Birkbeck college and the Open university? I notice that the Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will deal with that point.
Another fixation seems to be size. If an institution wants to call itself a university, it will, according to the consultative document, have to have a minimum of 3,000 full-time students and 4,000 full-time equivalents. That would rule out institutions such as the Dundee institute of technology which can meet all requirements regarding the level and quality of the learning opportunities that it provides. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) participates in the debate, I am sure that he will have something to say about that. Clearly, the Secretary of State is no believer in "small is beautiful", although "small is beautiful" might prove to be a campaign slogan for the Tory party in Scotland.
The Bill reveals a dogmatic dislike and distrust of local government. That theme runs through every single measure to which the Minister of State turns his hand. There is no evidence that further education is being provided badly by Scottish local government—still less that direct operation by the Scottish Office could provide it any better. On the contrary, to remove further education from local government will make it pretty well impossible to plan comprehensive area services for 16 to 19-year-olds—or, for that matter, for adults—to make the most effective use of education premises for the wide variety of communal needs that they should serve, to provide effectively for allied functions, such as careers advice, and to integrate the various services which together are needed to enrich community and personal development. Such integration has been an encouraging trend in recent years, in terms of both effect and economy.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman is always fair when we debate these matters. If he believes that this further education measure is motivated by prejudice against local government, why does he think that the Association of Principals of Further Education Colleges welcomed the Bill's provisions, as well as the individual colleges? Could it be that they believe that they will be able to do their jobs more effectively?

Mr. Hogg: A brief is being handed to me to answer that question, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not attempt to read it. The close print defeats my national health service spectacles. What teachers in the various institutions are saying to us is a matter of judgment and experience. That may be the view of the principals, but we shall have to wait and see what is said. 1 stand by the point that I made.
If, in the face of all this, the importance of giving colleges more managerial freedom is argued, I can only say that such an argument reveals a startling lack of a sense of

proportion. Greater managerial freedom could easily be obtained by measures similar to local management of schools, without all the disadvantages of removing the institutions from local government.
The desire to punish local authorities—I know not what else it can be—is evident, too, in the strange provision that if a college sells an asset after April 1993, the Government will get the proceeds but the local authority will still have to pay any debt charges outstanding on the asset.
The clearest give-away is the representation of education authorities on governing bodies. Unlike business interests, and even the staff and students of institutions, there is no specific provision for the representation of education authorities, yet they are the only elected bodies that can represent local communities. The various business people who will populate the governing bodies, however worthy, will be unaccountable and will become self-perpetuating. Where is the democratic principle in that?
If, however, local government representatives get on governing bodies, it is specified that they must not become chairmen. In other words, they will not just be second-class citizens but pariahs, rather in the way that those in custody in our prisons and those who populate another place are not allowed to vote—but not for the same good reasons.
I know that the Minister of State is obsessed with manpower. It therefore struck me as odd that only 30 additional civil servants will be appointed as a consequence of the Bill. I am not a betting man, but I wager that if the Scottish Office intends to deal effectively with almost 50 institutions and thousands of students it will need more than that or it will be skimping the job. The transfer of further education to the Scottish Office is an act not of logic but of spite.

Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend said that 30 civil servants are not enough for the job. Is he aware that that is almost as many people as attended the Young Conservatives national conference for Scotland at the weekend?

Mr. Hogg: Most of them were clearly in need of further education. Perhaps the Bill will be helpful after all.
I am convinced that more civil servants will be required. The Minister is kidding us if he thinks that he can pass a Bill of this magnitude with provision for only 30 additional civil servants.
The Bill asks institutions to "have regard" for special circumstances and special needs. It is interesting to note that language teaching for people whose family tongue is not English is specifically included under further education in the English Bill but seems to be specifically excluded in this Bill. When the Minister of State has had a chance—

Mr. Foulkes: To wake up.

Mr. Hogg: —to consider the matter without allowing himself to be amused by the interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and everywhere else, perhaps he will say why it is overlooked in this Bill when it is specifically included in the English Bill. I am not referring to Gaelic speakers.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why not?

Mr. Hogg: Few people speak Gaelic as a first language.

Mrs. Ewing: No.

Mr. Hogg: Their number has been diminishing over the years. People have come in from Commonwealth countries, so this important point must be addressed.
Particularly disturbing is the threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech in the all-embracing clause 36, which gives the Secretary of State power to make grants
subject to such terms and conditions as he may
define. No doubt the Minister will say that restricting what is taught, and how, is not his intention, but intent is no part of the law. The words appear in the Bill, and this year we have had two examples of the intervention of the Department of Education and Science, not the Scottish Office, in the subject matter and literature used for learning—once on a trades union studies course and once in respect of English language teaching.
The truth is that the Bill is another piece of ill-considered legislation, advanced more for decoration, and one more hit at local government, than for any good that it is likely to do for access to education and training. All this is coming from a Government who profess to want to return services to the people. We know that that is a centralist joke.
If the Bill has a permanent place in history, other than for the chaos that it will cause, it will be for enabling central institutions to become universities. That may have cosmetic advantages, but it typifies the weakness of the Bill and its lost opportunities. It may change the name, but the game seems to remain the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Bill Walker.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have just called the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I do not question your right to choose hon. Members in whatever order you think appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman was not present for the opening speeches. Is it in order for hon. Members who wish to speak to be called before hon. Members who have been waiting, or is that privilege reserved only for the Scottish Tory rump?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I well understand the resentment that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but the Chair must take many factors into account. Who is called to speak is a matter for the absolute discretion of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Bill Walker: Before that intervention, I was about to offer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chamber my apologies and regrets for being detained upstairs in Committee Room 10 studying the Bill to replace the community charge. I mistakenly thought that Opposition Members favoured that. I was involved in the Scottish part of the Bill until I came downstairs. I believe that the House will understand. Labour and Conservative Members from Scotland, who staff the Committees well, generally do most of the work.

Mr. Foulkes: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As one of the few Tory Back Benchers from Scotland, he faces the great difficulty of having to man Committees and attend the Chamber at the same time. But would not his job be easier if his right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr

(Mr. Younger) would attend the Chamber from time to time and carry out the responsibilities for which he was elected and is still being paid to do?

Mr. Walker: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not expect me to respond to that intervention. It has little to do with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should be careful. Labour Members from Scotland frequently consider Bills which mainly affect English areas of influence and spheres of operation. Often, they are unable to attend the Chamber because they are diligently carrying out their duties in Committee.
I welcome the Bill before us now because it provides for further education colleges to be run by local boards of management. That is real devolution—not the stuff that we get dressed up by Opposition Members. It enables local people to make decisions about their local colleges. That is very important.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that further education colleges are responsible to local authorities which are democratically elected by the people of their communities? How can he argue that the proposed change would be more democratic? It would be much less democratic.

Mr. Walker: I have no difficulty in arguing with that point. If the hon. Lady were to turn to her colleague's constituency of Angus, East, for example, she would find that the people in Arbroath—as in Forfar—fondly believe that they are better equipped than the people in Dundee to make decisions about their colleges. The people of Oban certainly believe that they are better equipped to make the decisions than the people in Glasgow. That is real devolution. It is sad, but whatever the merits have been in the past, one of the great advantages of making progress is that if one can allow local people to make decisions about what is happening in their community, they will happily accept. As I said, that is real devolution.

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Oban and the importance of local people deciding. Can he tell us which further education college serves Oban? Which is the nearest one?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give an answer, but I can certainly give the answer for Arbroath and for Tayside. Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who has just made an appearance, will help me out. She has been serving on the same Committee, so that is an example of how hard she and I have been working on behalf of Scottish interests. I am pleased that she has also escaped from the Committee to come to the Chamber. She will understand the interest when I say that the people of Oban are better equipped to make decisions about their area than the people from Glasgow. I do not pretend to be an expert on every further education college in Scotland. That would be nonsense because I am not.
We hear much about funding and finance which is quite proper because one cannot run institutions without adequate funding. It is interesting that the 46 further education colleges in Scotland have budgets of £200 million and that they train 200,000 people each year. The Scottish education funding council to be set up under the Bill will fund universities and higher education in Scotland. Again, that involves the control of finance and the awarding of powers to various institutions which is real


devolution. What we mean by devolution is giving people in Scotland power over matters that they can influence directly. We are not playing the game of shadow politics.

Mr. James Wallace: Most of us who refer to devolution or to home rule usually include a democratic element. Where is the democracy in the Bill's proposals?

Mr. Walker: The interesting thing about democracy is that it is a very fragile creature. Unless one participates in democracy, there is a risk of it withering away. One of the problems at local government level in Scotland is the derisory turnout at the polls. However, in Arbroath there was a high turnout at the last regional election to depose the incumbent councillor. The councillor who won—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree as the winner was a member of his party—did so on the basis that the people in Tayside based in Dundee did not understand, were not au fait with, and had no empathy with the problems of Arbroath. The hon. Gentleman is making my argument for me and I thank him. If one considers the low turnouts at local council elections, the argument about local accountability and democracy wears very thin.
I return to the points that I was making about real devolution. The eight universities in Scotland receive £300 million a year of taxpayers' funds and the 18 grant-aided colleges receive £175 million of taxpayers' funds. Both sectors receive £20 million for capital works. That means that the Government, on behalf of the public or the taxpayer, have invested more than £700 million of taxpayers' funds in further and higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: The hon. Gentleman has a lot to say about devolution but is not there also a devolution of debt? How does he justify the fact that in the further education sector all the loan charges on debts incurred up to April 1991 will be borne by the local authorities but if the assets are sold after April 1993, the Government will derive the benefit although local authorities still have to pay the debt? At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman and I differ because I do not believe that the local authorities or the Government have any money. They have taxpayers' funds, and I am choosing my words carefully. I believe that taxpayers' funds are merely lent to the bodies involved—whether to the Government or to local authorities—to spend with wisdom. At the end of the day, it does not matter where one apportions the funds because the money belongs to the Government. Debts are merely taxpayers' funds left for a longer period to be paid. They are deferred payments.

Mr. McMaster: In the circumstances that I have described, would not the poll tax payer at present have to pick up those debts?

Mr. Walker: That is not the case. The taxpayers and community charge payers will always pick up the tab of any central or local government expenditure. Eighty nine per cent. of local authority expenditure will in future come from a combination of central taxation and business

taxation, and 11 per cent. will come from the community charge payers. At the end of the day, the payments are made by the same people.
Since 1979 Scotland has had a substantial investment of taxpayers' funds. That has led to 61 per cent. of Scottish l6-year-olds staying on at school. That point was made by my hon.Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who was the Minister responsible for seeing through the House the Bill that made that possible. Sixty one per cent. stay on at school, which compares favourably with the 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds who stay on at school in England. We can be proud of that fact.
Today we can see the benefits of that enlightened investment. Scotland has a well educated and well trained work force. That has been an important factor in attracting foreign investment to Scotland and has contributed massively to Scotland's success in changing from the old smoke-stack labour-intensive industries to today's modern high-tech service economy.
Today there are more than 90,000 full-time and almost 50,000 part-time students in higher education in Scotland. Indeed, in 1979–80, 16–8 per cent. of school leavers in Scotland entered higher education. In 1988–89, 24·5 per cent. of school leavers did so, which makes nonsense of what we hear from the Opposition. To listen to them, one would think that we were not dealing with success, but we are. The Government have set a target of 30 per cent. by the year 2000. That all shows clearly who cares most about what we do for the youngsters who go to schools and colleges, and for the adults who wish to participate in further education.
I go further. Few reasonable people can doubt that the Bill, which represents real devolution, will encourage greater participation in further and higher education, and in training in Scotland. It will also set up a coherent system of vocational qualifications, which is important because individuals being trained or educated must have qualifications that will assist them in the real world in which they will participate when they finish their education.
There will be an increase in grants to the Scottish universities. In 1991–92, for example, there will be an increase of almost 11·5 per cent. over the previous year. That demonstrates clearly that the Government are putting the taxpayers' funding where it matters.
I declare an interest. In recent times, all my daughters have attended Scottish institutions of higher education, and my youngest is currently attending one. I will not say where she is because she would not want me to draw attention to that.[Interruption.] Opposition Members obviously do not care so deeply and passionately about their children as I do about mine. I am not interested in political gimmicks for children. The extra funding in the grants to Scottish universities—to Aberdeen, for example, 13·1 per cent., to Dundee, close to my heart, 16·2 per cent., to St. Andrew's, another fine institution, 15·3 per cent., and to Stirling, 16·2 per cent., all of which are not far from Tayside, North—will make hon. Members realise that we have a parochial view of what happens at those institutions and that we are delighted by the increases.
In Committee, we shall be given the opportunity to study the details. Today, I will put down a few markers. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the success of the devolving of powers to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will call for a clear demonstration that Scotland will have a proper share of


the transfer of assets from the Universities Funding Council so that there is no possibility of any adverse effect on institutional funding as a result of start-up costs.
The chairman and the chief executive of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will require to be individuals of substance who are capable of negotiating at United Kingdom level. They must not be civil service placemen who are seen at United Kingdom level as second division material. If that happens, Scotland will be in danger of losing out just as Scotland is in danger of losing out under Labour's second division assembly plans. We must be seen to be putting forward first division people within our plans. Scotland's universities must not lose out in areas such as research grant allocations where competition for funds will require tough negotiating at United Kingdom level.
The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) has written to me making a number of claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening. It claims that the wording of the Bill is
potentially misleading in failing to distinguish clearly between the terms 'designated institution' and 'university', and in the correspondingly loose definition of the term 'higher education sector'. Clarification of definition would be
greatly appreciated. The association advocates definition along the lines of
section 61(5) of the Further and Higher Education (England and Wales) Bill".

Dr. Hampson: Having spent many hours on the Education Reform Bill, which more or less contains the words used in the Further and Higher Education Bill, I can say that the Scottish draft is infinitely better.

Mr. Walker: That is the kind of reply that I hoped to get from the Front Bench. I am not giving my views:, I am merely reading out——

Mr. Robert Hughes: Read out what it says there.

Mr. Walker: The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) has every right to have its view recorded. That does not mean that one agrees with every dot and comma. As I have always done to any body that troubled to contact me and to inform me of its concerns, I assured the association that on Second Reading and in Committee I would ensure that the views were listened to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, what we do in Committee is what makes our job so interesting. We can make people listen and hear, and we get replies that make sense. Opposition Members do not always listen in Committee because they have pre-set positions. They never put forward views that can be seen as sensible or logical.
The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) goes on to say:
There is a long-held concept in the higher education sector that a funding body should be an expert intermediary, advising government about how its policies can best be translated effectively into institutional activity. The wording of the Bill in 31(3)(a) allows the Secretary of State to appoint a small minority of retired academics to the Council, an undesirable departure from the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. We would suggest that the majority of members should be persons who 'have experience of (and) have shown capacity in the provision of higher education".
I should have thought that people who had just retired would have that capacity. I have always believed that it was nonsense to suggest that someone who has reached the age of 60 on Tuesday has to retire on Wednesday. Such a

person has experience and knowledge. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have often argued that point on matters affecting aviation decisions, when the same charges were made against retired people—it was said that they did not have the experience, although they might have been in charge of the whole operation the day before.
The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) supports the establishment—my hon. Friend will be pleased at this—
of a Scottish Quality Assessment Committee, because of the responsibility of such a committee to advise the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, and the distinctive nature of the Scottish higher education system.
The association says:
we strongly oppose section 36(2)(a) which gives power to the Secretary of State to impose requirements of any nature to be complied with by the institutions concerned".
To me, that seems an odd comment as I have always believed that if taxpayers' funds are to be used, we must ensure that the referee—the Secretary of State—is clearly determined that they are used in the way that was intended when the funds were first voted for. However, it is necessary to put the association's views on the record.
The association also says that it believes that
the advice provided by the Council to the Secretary of State under section 37(1) should be published. In connection with the duty of the Council to keep eligible activity under review (section 37(2)), we suggest that the Council be specifically empowered in this section to commission and carry out such research as it may think appropriate, and be involved in the collection, monitoring and publication of statistical information related to Scottish higher education." 
The association goes on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The association will be interested to know that Opposition Members do not want its views to be recorded. It continues:
a notable omission in section 37 regarding the functions of the Council is the absence of any role for the Council in deliberations concerning the setting of student targets for the profession at United Kingdom level, such as takes place in connection with Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and Dentistry. We believe it is of prime importance that the interests of Scottish higher education institutions which have long been major providers of education for these professions should be appropriately represented.
Before concluding my comment on the correspondence that I have received from the university teachers, I must advise the House that they believe that, in respect of clause 41 (1),
the Secretary of State should be required to seek the advice of the Council and the institutions
before he proceeds to close any institution. The association also states:
In connection with the Council arranging for the promotion or carrying out of efficiency studies (section 45(1)) the Council should be required to consult the institutions before such arrangement. We would also wish that the Bill restrict the class of persons who may be chosen to carry out such studies to be appropriately qualified.
I assured the Association of University Teachers (Scotland) that I would raise those concerns on Second Reading and further address them in Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, I am sure that I shall serve on the Standing Committee.
Those who work in our universities and colleges of further and higher education must be able to believe that our supposed changes are sensible, that they have been argued and debated logically and that the Government have clearly spelt out the reasons for their proposals. Only in that way will it be possible to encourage the participation—the real devolution—that is proposed in


the Bill. In my meetings with university principals and with others who work in further and higher education, I have been encouraged by the way in which they have welcomed so many of the Bill's provisions. Although there will no doubt be some concern, in Dundee, for example, I believe that close examination of higher education institutions seeking university status will be required. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will put the case for Dundee if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When talking to the principals of St. Andrew's, Dundee and Stirling, I have been most encouraged by the way in which those three universities have been working together to ensure that their work within their own geographic area is complementary and that they are not causing one another problems. Such give and take will be essential if we are to see the benefit of the proposed changes. Such an attitude will also be required from the various colleges which, irrespective of whether they eventually become universities, must be embraced as part of the system.
I shall look carefully at the proposals from the colleges in Dundee which have a genuine case to put. It will be interesting to see how they can integrate their work and dovetail it into that of the three universities which are already working so well together in the central Perth area. That is an example that others should try to emulate. I hope that such co-operation will be the result of this important Bill.

Mr. Nicol Stephen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my first speech in the Chamber. As you can imagine, it is a great honour for me to address the House and to stand here on behalf of the electors of Kincardine and Deeside. It is also a tremendous responsibility, because I am only the second Member of Parliament to represent the Kincardine and Deeside constituency and I follow one of the most able, most conscientious and most respected Members of Parliament that the House has known. I have a copy of my predecessor's maiden speech with me. It was made on 1 March 1965—over 26 years ago—but the memory of his presence in the Chamber will still be fresh in the minds of many hon. Members.
Alick Buchanan-Smith is sadly missed. He was an outstanding parliamentarian, a caring Member of Parliament with deeply held personal convictions and a man of principle and integrity. Many tributes have been paid to Alick by thousands of people—from the Prime Minister, the leaders of the Opposition parties and from many others—but the most appropriate one for me to read to the House came from someone in Kincorth, a council housing estate in the Aberdeen city part of the constituency. That was never a Tory heartland, but this is what was thought of Alick there:
Everybody knew Alick. Nothing was too much for him—it did not matter if you were Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat or Tory. He always took an interest and he always helped out.
He stood up for his people; he stood up for his principles; he stood up for his constituency; and he stood up for Scotland, even when that brought him into conflict with his own party.

Indeed, it was over the issue of home rule and his commitment to a Scottish Assembly that he resigned as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 1976. It therefore seems appropriate that the Kincardine and Deeside by-election has led to a fresh and increasingly urgent debate on the future government of Scotland.
We are now at a watershed in Scottish politics. As with any watershed, it is difficult for everyone to agree to which side the flow of history may run. Conservative Members may even hope that the future can be frozen where we stand at present. They say that they can see no demand for a Scottish Parliament, but it is clearly now time for change. All Opposition Members can sense the movement—it is real; it is tangible. We do not know its exact course although many of us may predict it—but we do know that the flow will gather strength and pace, ending in an unstoppable tide that will bring home rule to Scotland.
Hon. Members and even honourable newspapers such as The Sunday Times and even the Evening Standard would do well to remember that talk of the Scots as "subsidy junkies" with a begging bowl and a "gie us mair" mentality does little to enhance the Union north of the border. The tone is strident, snide and superior. It is said that the meek shall inherit the earth and, although I am sure that even the Conservative party has not yet set its sights so high, I can assure Conservative Members that the Meek approach would certainly transform their prospects in Scotland.
I hope that gives a reasonably non-controversial and, if not that, at least a clear view of my first impressions of this House's attitude to Scotland. As a newcomer, I wonder if I might sketch in some of my other early impressions. It was a privilege to sit in the Chamber during last week's debate on Europe. For the most part, it showed the House at its best. I must admit that I smiled when I heard the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) refer to "elective dictatorship" and her plea that we must cling on to national sovereignty. I wonder which Lobby she would have walked through if she had been a Scots Member of Parliament in 1707, voting on the Bill of Union. I suspect that we all know the answer.
The greatest shock for me as a new Member is the poor quality of facilities to allow a Member of Parliament to get on with his or her job. The history and the splendour of this place are certainly breathtaking and the bars and the restaurants are abundant, but surely it is not beyond the wit of a modern democracy to realise that 650 Members require 650 offices, 650 desks and 650 telephones. I am still between offices and partly between desks. If any hon. Member is prepared to swap my pink ribbon on which I can hang my sword for an efficient working office, he or she should let me know. I will even throw in my personalised cloakroom hook for good measure.
I turn now to my constituency. It is a great honour to represent the people of Kincardine and Deeside in Parliament. It is a constituency of contrasts. It is a huge rural seat, but most people live in or close to Aberdeen city. It is an area with a strong economy but pockets of homelessness and real poverty. It is a place where the traditional industries of fishing and farming are found alongside the modern international energy industry.
During the by-election the character of the area shone through with one further contrast. Despite the tense and important political battle, the candidates from all the political parties got on well. The campaign was a fair one. It was well fought. That is typical of the north-east of Scotland. However, during the campaign all parts of the


constituency were bound thoroughly together by issues that affected them equally. They included strong regional issues such as the demand for east-coast rail electrification from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, the campaign to save the Gordon Highlanders and the urgent need for a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry.
Then there were major national issues such as the rising tide of crime and the need for more police. Crime in Grampian has increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1979. Other issues included the plight of the elderly and their need for a better deal, especially during the winter months—Braemar in the highlands of Kincardine and Deeside is Britain's coldest village.
Clearly, education was also one of the most important issues in the campaign, but before I discuss education in more detail, I must mention the key issue that worried local people most. It was mentioned on doorstep after doorstep. The opt-out scheme for Foresterhill hospital was opposed by all five candidates in the by-election. The Conservative candidate said that he judged and rejected the application by following two tests: first, improvement in patient care and, secondly, community support. He rightly said that the Foresterhill application passed neither test. There is a huge opposition to the opt-out. There is no community support. Local nurses, doctors and consultants all fear the consequences of the proposal for patient care. The Secretary of State should reject the opt-out without further delay.
I am pleased that the important issue of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill is the subject of my first speech in the Chamber. I am a member of a regional education authority. My parents are both teachers. I benefited—I believe—from Scottish higher education. Therefore, I am pleased that there are some positive aspects to the Bill.
The higher education sections in part II of the Bill are to be welcomed, although they are overdue. The Government could have acted six years ago when the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council recommended a new funding and planning council. That was turned down by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on the ground that it would start on the slippery slope to devolution. As an aside, may I compliment the Secretary of State on how easily the word "devolution" slipped from his lips earlier in the debate.
Therefore, we have had another six years of lack of planning across Scottish higher education. The eight Scottish universities have also had to suffer the Universities Funding Council which set in train complex planning exercises, demanding a great deal of work by the universities, and then paid little or no attention to them.
Part I of the Bill on further education causes much greater concern. The idea of the self-governing FE college was born out of not educational rationale but the desire of the Secretary of State for the Environment to cut local authority spending and resolve his party's poll tax problems. The changes are being made for alien, non-educational reasons. They are yet another assault on local government, yet another attempt by the Government to centralise power.
If FE colleges leave local authority control, how can vocational education be planned in conjunction with local authority schools? What provision is to be made for the disabled and handicapped? How can a fully integrated system be provided? The timing of the change is also bad.

The local enterprise companies—I am a member of one—are still finding their training feet. The Howie committee report on highers and vocational qualifications at school level is still awaited. So the cart is being placed very much before the horse. That point is emphasised by the fact that the Scottish Office knew nothing of the changes in advance of the poll tax crisis and has had to invent educational reasons for them.
Lastly, I should like to mention the position of the Robert Gordon's institute of technology. A major part of its campus falls within the Kincardine and Deeside constituency. It has a proud tradition, an international reputation for academic excellence and strong links with local industry. Yet the Government seem at best to have forgotten about it. During the by-election the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) gave one of the firmest nudges and biggest winks of the campaign when he said that RGIT was very likely—he may even have said extremely likely—to receive university status. I welcome his statement. The hon. Member for Stirling is a member of the Government and I urge the Government to end the uncertainty right now. They have done that for Glasgow and Napier. Give RGIT a clear, cast-iron guarantee. End the doubts about its future and give it the university status which it so richly merits.
For all the reasons that I have given, the Liberal Democrats cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill and have tabled a reasoned amendment.

Dr. Keith Hampson: It is a great credit to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) that he is here today and made the speech that he did. I have something in common with him, although he probably does not realise it. We both fought safe Conservative seats in a by-election. The difference is that he won and I lost. I lost to a Liberal. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss if I point out that the Liberal did not last long and within a matter of six months the Conservatives regained the seat. For the time that the hon. Gentleman is with us, however, we genuinely look forward to his speeches. He spoke today eloquently from experience and, as we all did, I took to heart the kind words that he said about his predecessor, who was deeply respected here and highly regarded and liked. On the night of the by-election the hon. Gentleman made another warm and effective tribute to his predecessor, which we all appreciated. That evening, as the Conservative candidate said, one saw that it had been a fair campaign. The hon. Gentleman deserves his success. He won well, he is here, and we look forward to the speeches that he will make in his time here. I know that he will represent his constituents of all parties as well as he is able.
I feel something of an interloper in the debate, but I hope that the House will not feel that I am too much so. I lectured for seven years at the university of Edinburgh.[Interruption.] It is difficult to come into a Scottish debate. They are not so genteel as English debates. The years that I spent at Edinburgh university are among those to which I look back the most. They were fine years. I am also a parliamentary consultant to the Association of University Teachers and I should like to make some remarks about the Bill in the context of its views and my experience in Edinburgh. I have been involved in higher education for


many years across the United Kingdom. I also took part for many hours in proceedings on the Education Reform Bill.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside referred to the Robert Gordon's institute of technology. In the mid-1970s, when I was Opposition spokesman on higher education, I had the great pleasure of visiting that institute. I was impressed with what it was doing. It took a series of initiatives in North sea studies and oil-related courses which were ahead of what Aberdeen university was engaged in. The institute may not have the full range of courses that other universities have, but that is not relevant in the type of system for which I have campaigned for many years. We should have a plural system of institutions which all have the generic name "university", but which have different niches, with different experience and expertise to offer.
I join the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside in the hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will settle the status of Robert Gordon's institute of technology. When it comes to a decision about resolving the names of the polytechnics that are about to become universities, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the English Department of Education and Science should regard RGIT and Napier college as examples. I have never understood why polytechnics are scampering for a geographical location in their title. I should have thought that the Scots example was a fine one. We owe debts to many famous people in the history of both our countries. Why do not institutions name themselves after a person and link the name to their town if they like? Directors of polytechnics and the Department of Education and Science should look to the good examples in Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, no Opposition Members objected to his participation in the debate—quite the reverse. I recall his time at Edinburgh university, where he taught with great distinction, but will he answer a simple question? I am becoming sick to the teeth of hearing about the west Lothian question. Only nine hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will favour the Bill, yet at 10 o'clock Members of Parliament representing English constituencies will vote it down. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that it causes a great deal of resentment and anger in Scotland that such a thing could take place? That is equally important, if not more important, than the bloody west Lothian question.

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member who represents west Lothian might have something to say about that. I am not the right Member of Parliament to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, for one good reason. I do not know whether he remembers it. I remain one of the unreformed devolutionists in the Conservative party. 1 experienced two intriguing and valuable years, in 1968 and 1969, as joint secretary of Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Scottish constitutional committee, when such matters were considered. I was of the view then that at least some form of devolution was necessary and I am still of that view, although we may differ as to the extent. When we considered the higher education system in Scotland as part of the committee's

work, there was no question but that all the universities, their vice-chancellors and staff, and the AUT were against devolution to a separate Scottish system.

Mr. McFall: To follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), knowing the hon. Gentleman's interest in devolution and Opposition Members' frustration because of lack of scrutiny, does the hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Bill should be sent to a Special Standing Committee where it should be given further scrutiny?

Dr. Hampson: If I am frank, I must say that it is a waste of time for the bulk of Members of Parliament to vote on the Bill tonight when they do not participate in the debate. Scottish Members of Parliament have to be here. They are taking time which some hon. Members representing the regions might like to use to discuss the problems of the north of England, for example. I would be delighted if Scottish business were being debated in an assembly in Edinburgh.

Mr. Dewar: May I reinforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? The hon. Gentleman takes a serious interest in the workings of this place and in the scrutiny of legislation. There has not been a special procedure committee with the three-day Select Committee format to scrutinise any Scottish legislation since that procedure was introduced. The AUT would probably agree that there could be much useful probing of the Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman join me in trying to persuade the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—the lonely sentinel on the Government Front Bench—that the Government should consider that constructively?

Dr. Hampson: Judging by my experience of education Committees, the answer is probably no. The last time I was on such a Committee, scrutiny took far too long. The procedure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentions is viable and I would like it to be used. I supported it when the House Committees decided that that was something that we should try. Other things proposed by Edward Short at that time have not been implemented either, but that is the way of life here.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Dr. Hampson: I am obviously popular in Scottish debates, and I should love to answer everyone, but if hon. Members will allow me I shall return to the attitude of Scottish universities and of academics in Scotland. I still have connections in Edinburgh and know that their view has changed. However, we should not be cavalier. They had sound reasons for not wanting to be separated. They saw themselves as part of one community of learning with a transfer of ideas and people. I might not have been a university lecturer in Edinburgh if the system had been entirely Scottish-run.
At the time people were concerned that the system could become parochial, that it would favour the appointment of Scots to Scottish universities and a higher proportion of Scottish students in Scottish universities.


Although in some universities, such as Glasgow, students were overwhelmingly Scottish, at others they certainly were not.
Scottish academics thought that it would be unhealthy for Scottish higher education to become so parochial. They wanted to stay in the mainstream of the world of education in the United Kingdom and to maintain the movement of scientific ideas and links to the computer board south of the border. They have changed their minds, but I suspect that they may come to regret it.
The reason why some of them changed their minds is that they got fed up with the operations of the Department of Education and Science and the Treasury. They think that they have been badly done by financially and will get a better deal from a Scottish committee. I must warn them that there is no certainty in that. In my experience, the smaller the body, the more restricted its funds. Scottish universities might find that there are different priorities and that they are regarded as having received a higher proportion of resources than other parts of the system. Scottish universities have done extremely well and have taken a higher proportion of students than the rest of the United Kingdom system, and all credit to them. However, it is possible that a devolved system in Scotland might decide that they had had a nice time and might not increase resources but trim them hack and use them in other areas.
I am not against the proposal, but people in the Scottish university system should not be too cavalier about how the situation might evolve.

Mr. Dalyell: If the English part of the system finds itself in tightened financial circumstances, would it not be only human to think that they would cut back their expenditure over the border?

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are worth considering. On a broader scale, I have always argued that the university world has been put under enormous pressure because of the extent to which numbers have risen. The scale of the expansion has caused many difficulties. Surely all hon. Members have supported that general direction—there has never been such expansion, such a widening of opportunities for young people, either south or north of the border. The scale of opportunities presented to young people in Scotland is greater than that south of the border. The proportion of people in that age group has risen to a greater extent north of the border. In the past decade in the south it has increased from 13 per cent. to 17 per cent., but north of the border it has increased from 16 per cent. to 24·5 per cent. A disproportionate proportion of resources have been put into the Scottish higher education system, compared with the amount that people in my university of Leeds, or in the universities of York or Bradford, would feel that they warranted.
People forget that whatever the pressures on institutions, and whatever financial difficulties they face, we are spending a significantly higher proportion of our gross domestic product on higher education than any of our major rivals, apart from the United States. The figures are staggering. The latest figures that I could find were for 1986–87, when we were spending 1·1 per cent. of GDP on higher education, the Germans were spending 0–6 per cent. and the Japanese were spending 0–4 per cent. Obviously, the GDP is much greater, so more money is going into the system, but that is because in the 1960s and mid-1970s in

particular—decades not under a Conservative Government—we had such economic problems that our GDP was hardly growing. By Japanese standards, therefore, we have a long inheritance of a small GDP. In terms of proportion, which is usually the statistical base used by Labour Members, we are spending more than our rivals. Indeed, it would be hard to increase the figure dramatically.
Following my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—[HoN. MEMBERS: " Where is he?"] I shall follow what he said about the Association of University Teachers. Central to the university world is the destruction of academic freedom, as it is put in the brief and as it was debated in the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill.
As I said when I intervened, I spent many hours on the Education Reform Bill. We debated the same issue then. It is undoubtedly the case that the words hardened in the 1988 Bill from anything that we had experienced in legislation previously. In this and the English Bill, the words have been tightened further. On balance, although I started with the view during that debate that the legislation should be heavily modified, amended or, indeed, scrapped, I concluded that the Government had a case. There is such a thing as financial accountability. These are large sums. It is a requirement of the Treasury and of the law that the Government must be able to put conditions on the money to avoid its abuse.
Equally, the powers can lead to positive results. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) talked about part-time education. That is one of the great success records of the past few years. Part-time provision has grown more markedly than full-time provision. My point is that it is only because the Government can place terms on the grant aid to the council that growth in part-time education can be directed, if that is desired. The Government give instructions to the council that it will get £X million, but only provided that it is spent on the provision and expansion of part-time education.
Although I understand the anxieties of the academic world that some Governments and Ministers might try to interfere with courses and the operation of the university, we were given a guarantee, certainly in 1988, that that was not the intent. I hope that we shall have similar guarantees. Although the powers look stark and horrendous, they are necessary to direct and use the money effectively.
A further tightening over the 1988 Bill is in the case of bankruptcy of an institution. Some universities have got themselves into a terrible financial mess. It would be wrong for a Secretary of State to have no power to intervene either to stop the expenditure or to direct it towards saving the institution from the dire financial consequences of mismanagement.
That is how I read those powers. Nevertheless, I join hon. Members on both sides in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reassure the House that this measure is not about interfering with course development or specifically directing money to or between institutions, but that it is primarily to give the institutions overall financial accountability and, if need be, to direct the council's activities when it funds institutions into areas of priority which the Government have determined.
It is worth mentioning that those of us who for years have campaigned to abolish the binary divide now have a Government who have grasped that nettle. Ministers in the Scottish Office and the Department of Education and


Science deserve great credit for that. The pressures against it, largely in the university world, have been tremendous and have worked against all Governments.
I advocated the abolition of the binary divide long before it appeared in a Labour party manifesto or proposal. At the time I was shadowing Gerry Fowler, who was having to defend it. The Labour Government went through the same problems. The universities did not think that the institutions were equivalent. They did not want the dilution of the concept of a university. That could be heard all over again the other night from Lord Beloff and many others in the House of Lords. That concern remains.
I have always felt that the fact that these institutions were not universities left them at a great disadvantage in our culture in terms of winning overseas contracts and convincing parents, pupils and teachers that the education would be as good and the opportunities as fine—indeed, sometimes more exciting at polytechnics—as universities. It was an uneven playing field, to use that ghastly term. The change of name at least gives those institutions better opportunities to attract talent and develop as they want to.
One important caveat applies as much to this as to the English debate. There is no logic, I hope, in saying that in changing the name to university, these institutions must change their direction and what they have been doing. Unfortunately, we have a history of precisely that happening. At times we have created new institutions which have modelled themselves on the old, more elite institutions, particularly Oxbridge. The universities of Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and Nottingham, as well as Armstong college, Newcastle, were all community colleges funded and set up by local business interests to be different. It was not long—indeed, only until between the wars—before they were not taking a majority of local students and they were dropping part-time courses. After the war, the external degree courses were dropped at London univerisity. Those colleges aimed to be, and became, more and more like Oxbridge. We set up the colleges of advanced technology because of that, but to some extent they, too, aped the university world, although not all of them have done so. Obviously, Brunel remains distinct. Then we set up the polytechnics.
In creating a single university system, it is essential to retain diversity. Above all, these institutions must set their sights on particular goals. They are particularly good in certain directions and they must carry on in them. I hope that the funding mechanism will encourage them so to do.
Finally—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have taken many interventions. I come finally to the focus of opposition from both main Opposition parties—further education. They have, rightly, welcomed the higher education provisions in the Bill. Many fears about the further education provisions are spurious. I can see the perfectly proper educational argument that there must be relationships between the school system and the next stage. It is also perfectly right that FE colleges must be responsive to the training and educational requirements of their community. No one can deny that.
Local education authorities and local councils do not educate anybody. Local councillors are not teachers. They sit on committees. They may have an interest and they may take an active role, but not necessarily. Councillors have been put on various bodies simply because places have to

be filled and not because of a commitment. The idea that a college must be democratically accountable is farcical. What is needed is a college that delivers what parents, pupils, students and trainees want. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] It is not done by having councillors. People at the education face and those in the training world know. They have connections with the college and its staff and with the people in the community. Often it is councillors and the council apparatus that get in the way of that process. I have known many instances when FE colleges would and could have responded to local requirements. For example, when factories have gone bust, they were prepared to set up courses to meet the community's retraining needs. They have to go through a great bureaucratic process to get the council's approval, the funding and the rest. There is no need for that.
An LEA or a council does not need a role for an institution, its staff and principal to be responsive locally. There is no logical connection. An independent, free-standing institution can be highly responsive locally, and examples of that—above all, the polytechnics—are clear to see. Equally, the universities are now seen in that light. They were more locally oriented after the war, and in the last decade or so they have again become more responsive to their local communities, regardless of any relationship with their city or town councils.
I do not for a moment accept the argument that there must be retention in a so-called integrated system. What we are now doing—we have done it with the polytechnics and we are now doing it with the FE colleges—is giving the principals and staff of those institutions more scope to deliver what they are good at, which is high quality courses tailored to the requirements of their communities. We should remember that if they do not do that, there will be a backlash against them. In part, the funding system will require them to play their proper role. If they cannot attract students to their courses, they will not have the scale of funds to expand and develop as they wish. So they will have to make themselves attractive. Some are already doing that successfully, some less successfully.
We are undertaking the present reorganisation not because there is any perception of failure in the system on the part of the central institutions, the polytechnics or the FE colleges. This is a genuine attempt to allow them to develop further on the successes that they have demonstrated they can achieve. The teaching staff have abilities and all concerned have specialities. We are now giving them freedom to develop those.
I have a caveat to enter, and that concerns sixth forms. I have always believed that the Conservative party was proud of the sixth form tradition and wanted to maintain viable and strong sixth forms. If further education colleges go into the business, as it were, of advertising their wares—attracting post 16-year-old students into their premises because they offer a more mature atmosphere, a bigger range of courses and so on—that could have the magnet effect of damaging sixth forms, particularly those that are viable only at the margins. We must seriously consider what that relationship is to be.
Overall, what we are doing today, and generally what we propose in the English Bill, marks a great advance for the institutions, for the students in them and, in this measure, for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I join the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) in congratulating the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his maiden speech. I also welcome him to the Opposition Benches. I hope that he will be with us after the next general election, and if the people of his constituency take note of what he said in this debate, there is more than a fair chance of that happening, though if the Conservatives can find someone of the calibre of the former right hon. Gentleman who represented that constituency, there might be a different story to tell. Mr. Buchanan-Smith had our genuine respect and we were sad to lose him. Having said that, I welcome the new hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and congratulate him on his speech. He may have the good fortune to become a member of the Standing Committee which considers the Bill.
It is ironic that the Government had to rely on the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to speak following the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps that reflects the apathy among Government Back Benchers. It is regrettable that the Government have been unable to encourage a decent turnout of their Back Benchers on an issue as important as this. I think I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent. I do not want to refer by name to Conservative Members who are not in their places and who are attending to other important business. I can think of at least one in the Conservative Scottish group who could have been here to speak following the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside.
The occasions are rare when my hon. Friends and I have cause to welcome any part, however insubstantial, of Conservative legislation on Scotland, but I, too, take pleasure in welcoming certain aspects of the White Paper on higher and further education. We are, of course, aware of the rather suspect reasons behind these moves, but it is a pleasing irony that sees a Conservative Government, all too evidently without a mandate to rule in Scotland, introducing policies to place the control of higher education institutions in the hands of a Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. That, after all, has been a long-term aim of the Labour party.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) have made clear—in the debate today and in that on 4 November—there are in the Bill plenty of matters of real concern to us that must be addressed by the Secretary of State. Of those, the abolition of the binary divide and the associated creation of new divisions in terms of status, funding and future development are of particular concern to me and my hon. Friends and to all involved in higher education in Scotland.
I shall concentrate on the institution in Dundee that is affected most directly by the Bill. The Secretary of State pointed out at the end of October that Dundee institute of technology would be among those to gain full degree-awarding powers in its own right. However, unlike Napier, Robert Gordon's, Paisley college and Glasgow polytechnic, Dundee—alone of the five technological institutions—was denied the right to back up degree awards with the title of university. That is remarkable, not only because of the lack of equity but because of a total absence of foresight by the Government.
The Dundee institute of technology was designated in 1901 as one of four colleges at that time loosely termed "industrial universities". Its aim then, as now, was the creation of a steady stream of graduates prepared for the world of work and industry, ready to earn a living and to play a valuable part in the national economy.
Like all the Scottish institutes of technology, the courses are of high quality in diverse areas such as biotechnology, human resource management, mechatronics, nursing and software engineering. Further, the institute provides industry and other external organisations with extensive research and consultancy services. In the last financial year, that resulted in a gross income of over £1 million. I need not remind the Secretary of State that Dundee institute of technology was among the first to be accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards and to be given delegated authority to confer degrees.
In short, there can be no doubt about the quality and breadth of courses offered by Dundee institute of technology and of its ability to participate effectively in assisting industry and commerce, answering their requirements and even providing direction towards a more effective partnership between education and industry. Nowhere was that better reflected than in a statement in The Dundee Courier and Advertiser on 18 November by Dr. James G. Adamson, vice-president of NCR. Having worked closely with the Dundee institute of technology for the last 11 years, Dr. Adamson is reported as warning:
not to give university status to the institute would be `disadvantageous to the Dundee and Tayside economic community and to employers in Taysid.
He went on:
We are concerned that DIT may not be titled a university, as we believe that this would put the college at a serious disadvantage in relation to its competitors, and this would be to the detriment of customers such as ourselves.
NCR is one of the few American companies which, from the start, has placed great emphasis on research and development in Scotland. It knows the worth of the guidance that has come from the Dundee institute of technology.
Yet the ability of that institute to maintain its position and develop its research capacity—not forgetting the most important factor, the ability to attract students and funding—will now certainly be under threat. After all, the Dundee institute of technology will be the only degree-awarding institution in Scotland without university status. Nor should we forget that most, if not all, of the 33 polytechnics in England will be given university status. That will all combine to create a squeezing effect, the logical consequence of which will be the relegation of the Dundee institute of technology to second division status.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, Labour wants
to ensure that the binary divide will genuinely be dispensed with and that further divides are not introduced".—[Official Report, 4 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 280.]
Those were not the words of the Secretary of State but that is exactly what would happen.
A letter from one of my constituents, Mr. George B. Fyfe, shows the concern of those who have gone through the Dundee institute of technology. Mr. Fyfe gained a degree in electronic engineering at the institute and says:
I will be placed at a serious disadvantage when applying for future job opportunities as potential employers will view my degree as being of lower standing as those from an Institution which will be of 'University' status … To create


a situation in which DIT will be the only degree awarding Institution in the United Kingdom not having 'University' in its title is to me completely contrary to the aim put forward in the White Paper, of eliminating the binarised higher education system.
Mr. Fyfe is one of the success stories of the Dundee institute.
I understand that the Secretary of State based his decision on size, but his size-based conditions have more relevance to England than to Scotland. It is an interesting attitude for the Government to adopt. Those factors bear little significance to Scotland, but they are not the only irrational determinants. Until recently, four of the existing eight Scottish universities were too small to satisfy the Secretary of State's conditions. Furthermore, Dundee institute of technology is expanding its operations and mergers are already under way with other colleges in the area.
I am sure that the Secretary of State has received a paper from the institute. I draw his attention to page 3 of that paper, in which the institute sets out proposals that are now under discussion. The Scottish Office is aware that it is proposed that two colleges of nursing and midwifery, with which the institute has long-standing and mutually beneficial links, should merge with the institute. The merger has been approved in principle by the health boards concerned. That would increase the institute's equivalent full-time student population by about 900, and the institute expects to increase its full-time enrolment to 3,250 in the next three years.
There will be major disadvantages because of minor details of numbers which, in a short time, may no longer be relevant. Should we allow a needlessly unfair situation to come about? Surely we should look at quality rather than quantity. We have already witnessed the Government's assaults on Scottish Army regiments in the pursuit of "quality rather than quantity". Are we to presume that the tables will be turned on educational matters, which are as important—if not more important—to the nation? Does the quality of education offered by the Dundee institute of technology amount to nothing? Is size really the most important factor?
Do not the people of Dundee, and the employers there and from as far afield as Perthshire, Fyfe and North Tayside, deserve equal provision to that of Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, all of which have increased access to university status, degree-awarding institutions with all their associated advantages? If that position is allowed to prevail, the divisions will become concrete. The gap between the Dundee institute of technology and other institutions will widen and combine with other valid Labour party concerns on funding, provision of materials and research contracts, to work against the institute in its determination to gain university status and continue to provide the calibre of graduates mentioned by Dr. Adamson.
I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill when we shall be able to explore the other aspects of the measure with which I disagree. I thought that it was important tonight to express the concerns of the Dundee institute of technology, which are shared by many others, including academics in Dundee. I hope that the Minister will have regard to those concerns and give a fuller and more favourable reply when he winds up the debate.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I add my congratulations and those of my hon. Friends to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen), who made a caring and thoughtful maiden speech. He and I will certainly not disagree on many issues, but we may, in later months, dispute the points of emphasis. I wish him well in his work as the new hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. As a fellow Grampian MP, I know that he has large shoes to fill. His predecessor, Alick Buchanan-Smith, was highly regarded by all hon. Members, particularly by those of us who represent Grampian seats. If ever trans-party boundaries could be crossed in terms of seeking improvements for our constituents, Alick Buchanan-Smith was one of the most generous hon. Members whom I have ever come across. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will follow in that tradition.
I welcome the fact that the Bill is specifically for Scotland. It stands in stark contrast to what happened to school education, because only one clause of the Education (Schools) Bill applies to Scottish schools. In my many years in this House and in politics, this is the first time that I have seen such a vital part of Scottish education shoehorned into a United Kingdom Bill. That is widely regarded by the Scottish National party and people involved in education as a major insult to their interests and traditions and the care which they register for our education system.
I hope that the Government will agree that the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee, because it is a real opportunity for Scottish Members and organisations to sit down together and review what is happening in further and higher education to ensure that the needs of that sector are addressed.
Before the House votes on the Opposition's motion to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, I hope that the Minister will say which Back-Bench Members he plans to have on the Standing Committee, because the Conservative Benches are obviously lacking in Members. Indeed, the Minister is the only member of the Government present—[HoN. MEMBERS : "There is one hiding in the corner."] I apologise to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), but he appeared to be hiding behind the Clerk's Table.
I hope that there will not be a repetition of what happened on the Bill on self-governing schools, when the Minister packed the Committee Room with six of his cronies to legislate against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people and the elected representatives in this House. It is important that he should say who will man the Conservative Benches in Committee, because that is vital to everyone involved in further and higher education in Scotland.
I should be much happier if I felt that the Bill was driven by a genuine concern for Scottish post-school education. Yet again, we are being dragged along with the philosophy of what is happening south of the border. Because an English Bill is dealing with further and higher education, Scotland must have one too. The philosophy that underpins the Bill is alien to the traditions that we know and respect in education in Scotland.
At best, the Minister of State was slightly mischievous when he set draftsmen the task of drawing up the Bill. He has put together aspects of the changes which the vast majority of hon. Members and their colleagues in further


and higher education would welcome, but he has also introduced into the legislation aspects that none of us would welcome. I said that he was mischievous; others have expressed it more strongly.
The president of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Association, Mr. Kenneth Johnson, addressing a meeting in Scotland at the weekend, described the Minister with responsibility for Scottish education as "ridiculous and fanatical"—something that one would not expect the Minister to regard as complimentary. However, knowing the Minister's attitude, I think that he might well regard it as such. Mr. Johnson said that he did not normally feel himself politically motivated but Government meddling in education had forced him to rethink.
The problem with the Conservative Party in Scotland is that it has either too few MPs or nine too many.
That problem could well be resolved at the next general election.
Aspects of the Bill to be welcomed include the removal of the binary divide, which I have always seen as false, and the establishment of a funding council. However, I even have reservations about those features. I am not convinced that the structure that is being set up under the proposal will provide the necessary foundation for a strategic post-school education system.
Scotland is a small nation with a population of just over 5 million. I have always thought that a simple way to progress would be to ensure that we have an overall view of what we expect to attain in post-school education. I do not know that the removal of the binary divide as presently defined in the Bill will achieve the strategic overall view that is so necessary.
In the 1970s, when the Scottish constitutional issue raised its head yet again and 11 members of the Scottish National party dominated many of the debates in the House, the university principals were very much against the idea of including the universities within the educational responsibility of a devolved Assembly in Scotland. I never understood that attitude, and in the years since then the principals have come to realise that to have their own funding council would offer them a better opportunity to protect themselves from the ravages of Governments who have cut educational funding, and allow them to reach out into the wider world, particularly as we look towards the European dimension and all that will happen as a result of closer political and monetary union with our European counterparts. I am pleased that the principals and vice-chancellors of our universities are now welcoming that facility, but I believe that we must consider carefully how the funding will be allocated to the council.
Scotland trains more than twice its per capita requirements of doctors. Many students who come to Scottish universities to train in medicine and veterinary medicine are from other parts of the United Kingdom. They train in Scotland because it is well recognised as having expertise in those subjects. If the funding council is to consider solely the population basis in Scotland, it will neglect a service that we gladly offer to the other nations of the United Kingdom. We do not expect those students to stay in Scotland; we realise that they may return to England, Wales and Northern Ireland to build up the health service in those communities. That vital issue must be addressed by the funding council if we are to ensure that universities not only expand but maintain the best traditions and services offered in the past.
Clause 31 gives the Secretary of State a free hand when appointing members to the funding council. The Scottish National party believes that the council should include an elected element. We could debate how that could best be achieved, and I shall make various suggestions in Committee. University principals and college heads should, acting as a group, have the right to elect someone to be their representative within the funding council.
I also believe that student organisations such as the National Union of Students and the students' representative councils should be allowed a student voice on the council. We must look at how appointments are made. I do not believe in patronage or that a system should be writ large on the face of the Bill whereby the Secretary of State can, on a whim, appoint people without taking account of academic needs and aspirations, and the wishes of the population as a whole.
I have knowledge of further education issues, as I worked in further education, albeit briefly, at two important institutions—Clydebank college, which serves Oban and Tiree to the west, and Langside college in Glasgow. We provided a service for people employed in social work who wished to take exams to attain professional qualifications. That was an important aspect of the work of the further education colleges.
Can the Minister reassure me that the links between community education and adult education, which are clearly defined at present through the funding link, will continue if the Bill is not amended? If the funding link is broken, the services provided by community and adult education will deteriorate. If we are to crush the notion that education starts at the age of five and normally finishes at the age of 16, we must fight extremely hard to ensure that community and adult education are recognised for the worthwhile services that they provide in the education system.
Conservative Members talk about the devolution of education, and their idea of devolution. Why do they believe that the repositories of wisdom in further education are solely the local business communities? Local authorities are democratically elected; councillors, like hon. Members, have to put themselves up for election every so often to answer for their actions. If the public decide to re-elect them, they do so on the basis of their manifestos.
Local authorities have had a responsible attitude towards further and higher education. I think particularly of the Grampian region, which I know best because it is my local authority. The work it does is much to its credit. It provides courses and recognises local needs, but it also realises that education is not just about obtaining a job. Education also encompasses what we in Scotland refer to as the democratic intellect. Education should be welcomed as a pursuit in itself, not downgraded as though it were solely for the purpose of achieving a job.
Access to education is a key issue. White Papers and speeches in the House have contained many fine comments about widening and ensuring access to education. I suspect that there is not a single hon. Member who, during the past few years, has not experienced at first hand the difficulties of individual constituents seeking bursaries or grants in order to pursue educational goals. It seems that those people often fall between two stools—local authority bursary systems and the grant system—or perhaps they do not qualify for a grant due to lack of the relevant residential qualifications.
I know of a young man who is trying to pursue a career at Napier college. He and his parents returned to Scotland from South Africa two and a half years before his course started. At the end of October 1991, he was informed by the Scottish Office Education Department that he would not receive a grant because he did not satisfy the three-year residency requirement. He decided that, with parental support, he would start the course, assuming that once he had achieved the three-year residential qualification he would then be eligible for a grant for the rest of his course. However, he has been told that he must take a year out of his course and support himself if he is ever to have any opportunity of being offered an SED grant.
Therefore, one place on that course has been lost this year and the man has had a valuable year of his academic and professional life lopped off. The SED should have had the discretion to ensure that the young man could obtain a grant for such a popular course. It is the central authority's inflexible application of the regulations which makes it so difficult for us to explain to our constituents what is happening to them.
I am also concerned about access for and the support given to women who return to further education looking for new job opportunities, perhaps when their families have grown or as heads of single-parent families. I am often asked by women in my constituency how they are expected to manage. If they are given a small grant, they lose other benefits such as housing or child care benefit, which makes it impossible for many of them to take up the opportunities for retraining in the local colleges. There should be a special attitude towards women who wish to return to training, particularly later in life when they have raised their children.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that I have read the Bill carefully to see what provision it makes for youngsters with special needs coming into training and education. I have long had links with the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, for whose work and research I have the greatest respect. It too has read the Bill with great care, and it is deeply concerned that there appears to be a lack of specific provision for the mentally handicapped entering our further education colleges.
The society has pointed out that previously there existed a clear system of integrated local authority commitment to such people. If further education colleges are to become separate institutions, they will not be part of that integrated framework. They will only have a duty to have regard to people with special needs, whereas previously they had a duty to take account of such people. The Minister must tell us tonight exactly how he sees that working out for the benefit of people with special needs in our communities.

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend will know that I have a particular concern in that area. Does she agree that direct local authority involvement is of the utmost importance in that area, so taking those colleges out of local authority control is particularly damaging?

Mrs. Ewing: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that all hon. Members appreciate his particular interest in the matter. He has clearly spelt out his own attitude, with which I agree.
The removal of colleges from local authorities will be damaging. If, at the end of the day, the further education colleges are meant under the new councils to specialise in vocational education, will they provide non-vocational courses in subjects such as life skills, or will that be left to local authorities which might not have the necessary funding?
If the local authority is to be responsible, where will it find the resources to provide such services? We will end up with a dangerous situation, in which special needs education receives only a token appreciation from the colleges, providing low quality and poorly resourced courses. If ever there was a need for us to consider our educational priorities, it is to ensure that such people are given properly resourced and high quality courses.
In considering further and higher education, it is important to remember those who deliver the service on our behalf—the hard-working members of staff who give of their time working long hours at night preparing courses, who have had to absorb changes in administration and courses with little recognition. During the past few months, we have seen the problems that our further education lecturers have experienced in trying to achieve a sensible pay settlement in recognition of their work.
Like other hon. Members, I have been inundated with letters from those who teach in my local college in Elgin. One such letter says:
Over the last 5–6 years FE in Scotland has a record to be proud of, especially with the innovations to this sector introduced by the HMI and the SED through Scotvec, all this with very little if any extra funding.
Another letter says:
For the second time this college term I find myself having to take industrial action as a Further Education lecturer in Grampian Region, in spite of the fact that my own Region has already publicly acknowledged the justness of our claim and stated their willingness to settle.
If we are talking about devolution, if a local authority is prepared to recognise the worth of its members in further education colleges, why have the Government dragged their feet for such a long time, instead of giving our further education lecturers the recognition which they so clearly deserve? Other hon. Members have referred to the university teachers, on whose behalf we have lobbied over several years to ensure recognition for them as well.
The morale of staff in further and higher education institutions has been seriously undermined and the Government must take account of that. That is one reason why the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. That would enable those organisations to talk to us and to make their representations to us in detail, instead of over hurried cups of tea in the Strangers' Tea Room downstairs.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) spoke eloquently about the situation affecting Dundee institute of technology. My party heartily endorses the points that he made. It is ludicrous that only one out of five colleges should not achieve university status. I wish Dundee well in its campaign which I shall certainly support.
It is tragic that the possibility of establishing a highlands and islands university should be omitted from the Bill. For more than 25 years, we in the Scottish National party have argued that a highlands and islands university based on the collegiate system would be a major factor in the regeneration of the area's economy, ensuring the retention of our young people and offering facilities to people elsewhere in Scotland and from all over the world.
Our expertise in areas such as agriculture and forestry would be of great benefit to people in the third world in particular. That would be a major contribution to resolving some of the problems that face us. The Minister should have considered that possibility. In Scotland we should have a collegiate system——

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Ewing: I have listened to all the hon. Lady's speech.
The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the Scottish National party has campaigned for a highlands and islands university for the past 25 years. The president of the SNP, Dr. Maclntyre, was the president of the committee which campaigned against the university going to Inverness, and successfully brought it to Stirling instead.

Mrs. Ewing: It was a mistake to give way to the hon.Gentleman, because obviously he does not understand Scottish National party policy. The SNP has for 25 years had as its policy a university of the highlands and islands, but that option was not being considered when Stirling university was established. Provost Robert Maclntyre, a former respected member of the House, campaigned extremely hard, and won that university for his town. No one supports the concept of a highlands and islands university more strongly than Provost Dr. MacIntyre.
There are many major omissions from the Bill, which could have addressed many of the problems confronting Scottish education. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, and we will deal with others in Committee. I conclude by asking whether the Secretary of State and his Ministers will again have their cronies among English Conservative Members imposing upon the Scottish people legislation that they do not endorse. If that happens, it will make a mockery of democracy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It would be remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) and not to pay tribute to his predecessor, the late Alick Buchanan-Smith. Alick had a rare quality in this House, in the respect that he had for a confidence. If one wanted to discuss a problem with him, one could guarantee that one would not read the content of the conversation in the newspapers the next day, with Alick claiming the origins of everything discussed. That quality is one that many right hon. and hon. Members would do well to respect. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside will follow in that tradition.
Scottish Office Ministers never fail to amaze me. Their illogicality is their only consistent part of their behaviour. The Secretary of State paid tribute to Scottish further education colleges, saying that they were an excellent group of institutions, yet made no case for taking control of them away from local government. Those colleges achieved excellence because of the work of dedicated councillors who, over the years, had the vision of taking education beyond the narrow confines of the so-called academic system and Oxbridge tradition.
That sort of vision led to the development of new institutions. There must be someone who sits in the sunks of St. Andrew's house and thinks up wizard ideas, on the basis that it does not matter whether they have been thought through, but, "It's a good idea—let's try it out." Such a notion apparently gets turned into a Bill without any logical argument for change being made.
One cannot cast aside as being of no account generations of thinking in local government, or that which is still to come. Local councillors are much derided by Conservative Members, but they would do well to remember the contribution that locally elected representatives have made in the past, and can make in future in respect of the education system.
What is the future of Robert Gordon's institute of technology? Everyone acknowledges its excellent record as a first-class educational establishment that is unrivalled not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. We must put to rest the lingering suspicion that part of the Government's concept of developing higher education in the city of Aberdeen is a merger between the university and RGIT. I thought at one time that there might be some merit in that development, but the concept could never be independently examined because the university's former principal, Professor McNichol, sprung it on the educational world without even informing the institute's principal that he had such a development in mind.
A merger could proceed only if a commission undertakes a lengthy and well-thought-out investigation into the merits of each institution, to identify where they complement one another and dovetail, and to ensure that there would be no overlap or waste of resources. Having said that, I believe that there is much to be said for the independence of both institutions being maintained. They complement one another, and in a sense spur one another on to achieve higher standards—and I hope that they will continue to do so.
In RGIT's change to university status, I hope that the access that it and the university currently offer to mature students will not be lost or be subject to interference. Perhaps my earlier exchange with the Secretary of State will have led him to conclude that he was a little precipitate in refusing to meet a deputation from the north-east of Scotland. There was in his speech the hint of a change of mind or of an opening of new avenues.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am always happy to see the hon. Gentleman about any constituency matter, privately or otherwise. Our difficulty was that we were about to publish the criteria, and if we had agreed to meet particular institutions prior to publishing the criteria on which we would consult, many others would have wanted to do the same. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see me now that we are consulting, I should be happy to meet him, to learn his views. When I spoke to RGIT, I gained the impression that it was fairly confident of its ability to meet the criteria. There is no suggestion that we will want to change the criteria in any way that would exclude any institution. That should help to allay the hon. Gentleman's fears.

Mr. Hughes: I will of course consult those people who sought a deputation with the Minister. However, in case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusion, if he re-reads my letter carefully, he will find that I asked if he would meet a deputation comprising Members of Parliament from


north-east Scotland, and members of Grampian regional council, Aberdeen city district council, Aberdeen chamber of commerce, and Aberdeen trades council. I omitted any representative from RGIT because I anticipated his objection. The institute anyway has its own access to consultation. Nevertheless, I will consult those other bodies to establish whether they still want to meet the Minister. If so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome them.
One of the great things about the development of further education colleges is that no local authority that I know of has ever sought to impose its political bias on them. It would be hard to exert political influence on those studying for engineering degrees, although that has been done in some parts of the world. However, when it comes to courses that deal with the broader aspects of society and the environment, I know of no education authority that has attempted to impose political control.
I hope that the Secretary of State does not have it in mind to impose Government political control over Scottish universities. Of course there must be accountability, examinations of efficiency, and monitoring—to ensure that courses are of a high standard. That is reasonable, but if a certain faculty upsets the political sensibilities of someone at the Scottish Office, that should not provide a reason for compelling it to change its teaching. University academics can sometimes be prickly and produce reports that are not to the liking of us all. However, that is precisely what they ought to be doing, in keeping an open mind and taking an invigorating look at the problems facing society.
Once we have a separate Scottish funding system and separate control or supervision of Scottish universities, what will happen to the interrelationship between students in Scotland who seek a university education and their English counterparts? Will Scottish students still have the same access to English universities, and vice versa? Will the UCCA system apply across the board? Surely it is the interchange of students from different backgrounds that makes university education something to be treasured.
I never enjoyed the benefits of a university education, but my children have done so. They have benefited from meeting people from many different cultures and walks of life. It would be a tragedy if Scottish universities became small, parochial institutions, concerned only with what took place within their precincts and "twa mile roon".
Even at this late stage, I ask the Secretary of State to consider sending the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. I have sheaves of briefing here: I have heard from spokesmen for nearly every aspect of university life. All my correspondents have made detailed, pertinent points about the working of the legislation. We are charting the future of further and higher education in Scotland: we must think not of the next six months or even the next six years, but well beyond the year 2000. We cannot afford to get it wrong; we cannot afford to let the party-political axes that we have to grind interfere with our aims.
I respect the Minister of State as a combative party politician. That is nothing to be ashamed of. None the less, I hope that he, like me, will take off his party-political hat and accept that we must not endanger our cherished education system. Please let us have the Special Standing Committee; please let us get it right.

Mr. Alan Amos: Although, sensibly enough, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) has gone to find something to eat, let me begin by congratulating him on his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech—also on education—more than four years ago, but I know that it is a nerve-racking experience. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great sincerity and eloquence.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing such a timely and welcome Bill. Its aim is to raise educational standards in Scotland and to make the provision of Scottish education more locally based, while increasing local responsibility and accountability. I regularly commend the Government on the raising of educational standards in England and Wales; today's deb.' te provides me with an ideal opportunity to explain why the Government can rightly be proud of their achievements in Scotland.
Scotland, of course, has a proud educational tradition. It also boasts what is arguably one of the most impressive and envied education systems in the world. It is a long-standing tradition there for the laird's son to sit down in the classroom with the farmer's son, and I pay tribute to those who brought about that tradition.
One of the Bill's main provisions transfers the general duty to provide the services of further education colleges from local authorities to boards of management, under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The 46 further education colleges in Scotland provide education and training for 200,000 people every year; this year, local authorities will spend some £200 million on those colleges. From 1993 onwards, however, the funds will be deducted from the revenue support grant and transferred to the Scottish Office to help the colleges to become more responsive to the needs of students and employers.
I consider that transfer a logical next step. New college councils have already been established; at least half the members are employers. Local enterprise companies are being encouraged to play a greater role in the activities of further education colleges in their areas. The requirement that the new management boards should include a given number of people with experience of industrial, commercial, professional or other types of employment is long overdue. It is also appropriate for one of those people to be nominated by the local enterprise company involved.
From 1993 onwards, the further education colleges will become independent, corporate bodies. They will have freedom to expand and to respond swiftly to local training needs. They will, however, continue to receive fee income from training credits, and any other income from services such as consultancies. The new funding arrangements will reward effective and efficient colleges, thereby encouraging others to do better.
I welcome the provision in clause 11 to allow existing staff to transfer automatically from employment with the education authorities to employment with the new boards of management, with the same pay and conditions. None the less, the Government are right to ensure that local authorities do not try to be obstructive during the transition period. That has happened in other instances. To cover the transitional arrangement, the Secretary of State's consent will be required for contracts worth more than £50,000; quite rightly, his consent will also be needed for the disposal of land. We must ensure that the possible reluctance of some local authorities to pass on information


to the new boards is properly dealt with. The provision in clause 9 for the Secretary of State to terminate the management of a college by the local authority is another sensible safeguard.
The Bill confers on the Secretary of State a duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of further education in Scotland, including both formal courses such as those leading to higher education—Scottish Examination Board qualifications—and less formal courses, providing basic skills and fulfilling special needs. That is a duty, not an option. No longer will parents he confronted with large bureaucratic dinosaurs; they will be dealing with local boards of management which will understand local needs and local problems, and which will thus be much better placed to respond swiftly to such needs.
Any system that takes account of both the community and the children whom it educates is truly to be welcomed. It ill behoves Opposition Members to nitpick and complain about such a logical and desirable development. The Opposition cannot have it both ways; they cannot call for greater integration of education into the community—and there has been a groundswell of opinion in that direction for many years among teachers in Scotland—and, at the same time, oppose the Bill, and the provision of greater accountability and integration for which they themselves have called. Who better to be responsible for the direction of the funding and management of the colleges than the local community, which will be most directly affected by what and who comes out of those colleges?
I warmly welcome the principle of rewarding effective and efficient colleges. I am all in favour of competition and rewards for achievement; I consider that one of the quickest and best ways in which to raise standards. This is a sensible and logical move, which contrasts starkly with the sole response of the Labour party: as always, that response is to promise to undo all our good work, and to throw more money at local authorities without regard to how it is spent. Knowing the excesses and abuses of Labour authorities, I am always heartened when powers and responsibilities are wrested from their iron grip, and given instead to parents and the local community.
The other main part of the Bill deals with higher education. The Government have sensibly recognised the distinctive nature of the Scottish education system, and taken it into account in the funding allocations to the institutions included in this part of the Bill, as well as those dealt with in the first part. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned access to Scottish universities for English students and vice versa; that, of course, will remain. It is the Government's policy to widen such access, and to introduce competition and movement.
I welcome the Opposition's general support for this measure. However, I was amazed and alarmed to read in their document "A New Approach: Scottish Education in the 1990s" that
increasing the total resources of higher education … will be the test of any future policy proposals.
Surely quality and relevance have something to do with a first-class education system. I note that the Labour party has made no promise to spend more money on Scottish higher education. However, the Government are spending £500 million a year on Scottish higher education.
The Bill sets up a separate funding council for the eight Scottish universities and the 17 grant-maintained colleges. By establishing the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, resources will be transferred to the Scottish Office, away from the Department of Education and Science, and will take full account of both the higher participation rates in Scotland and of its four-year degree courses. That is another example of transferring decision making to local level and of the allocation of funds being determined by the people who are most closely involved. I do not see how anybody can oppose that.
Higher education and further education both play a vital part in Scotland's economic regeneration. As a result of the Government's policies, Scotland has a well-trained and educated work force. That has undoubtedly been an important factor in attracting so much foreign investment in recent years, with more than 90,000 students in full-time higher education, plus 50,000 part-time students.
Let us look at the Government's success. In 1988–89 one quarter of all Scottish school leavers entered higher education, compared with only 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is a 50 per cent. increase since the final year of the last Labour Government. The Government are well on the way to meeting their target of one third of school leavers going into higher education by the year 2000. In addition, Scotland has a larger percentage of 16-year-olds staying on at school—61 per cent., compared with 35 per cent. in England. Since we came to office the number of mature students has risen by a staggering 64 per cent. There is a lot of good news. We must make that clear. Opposition criticism—that we are running down education and that we are not interested in it—is overturned by those facts.
The establishment of a separate Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will entrench Scotland's unique position. The allocation of funds will be administered by the funding council, within a framework laid down by the Government, thereby preserving the autonomy of the institutions concerned. It is entirely right that funding decisions will henceforth be influenced by quality considerations. The funding council will be empowered to establish quality assurance arrangements and to make provision for efficiency studies in the institutions.
Clause 33 will require the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to establish a quality assessment committee to advise the council on the quality of education provided in the institutions that it funds. That is both sensible and logical. It will afford the funding council the ability to assess how well or otherwise the money is being spent. For too long responsibility and accountability over Scottish education spending has been hidden behind a bureaucratic wall of, at best, indifference. I am delighted that the funding council will be able to cut through the red tape and keep a close watch on the quality, which is the real key—not just money—to a successful education system. The unit within the funding council to assess quality will therefore be playing a most important role.
Scottish higher education will be able to compete with the wider United Kingdom market to attract students. The allocation of resources will take full account of the number of non-Scottish students attending Scottish universities. Under clause 36, although the Secretary of State can dictate terms and conditions of grants to the funding council, he cannot impose conditions that relate to financial support for activities carried out by particular


institutions. There is a limit, therefore, to the financial powers of the Secretary of State, should he choose to use them. The Bill strikes a nice balance between the relative powers of the funding council and the Secretary of State. That is right when the Government are providing the money. It is only right that they should have some control over how it is spent. That is a perfectly reasonable and accepted principle.
Another important feature of the Bill is that the Secretary of State will be given the power to grant to higher education institutions degree-awarding status and that certain colleges and polytechnics under the control of the Secretary of State will be able to become universities. Quite rightly, however, the Government have issued a consultation paper regarding the specific criteria that will be applied when assessing applications for this very important change of status.
It is also proposed that the extension of degree-awarding powers should be based on the criteria used by the Council for National Academic Awards. Very sensibly, any application will be judged on the number of students involved and the breadth and depth of teaching and research in the institutions. Is it not remarkable that the freeing of polytechnics and colleges has been so successful in the United Kingdom that they will soon be able to call themselves universities? But is it not even more remarkable in its inconsistency that while the Opposition support this move they oppose the very similar move to free further education colleges from local control and allow them, too, greater freedom to flourish and expand in exactly the same way?

Mr. Frank Haynes: What does the hon. Gentleman know about it?

Mr. Amos: Does the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) want to contribute to the debate? If so, I shall happily give way to him.

Mr. Haynes: Who wrote the hon. Gentleman's speech for him? Did it come from Conservative central office? It certainly did not come from him.

Mr. Amos: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is listening to my speech. I can assure him that I spent both this morning and this afternoon writing this speech. I have an interest in education.

Mr. Haynes: Where?

Mr. Amos: In Scotland, in England, and in the whole of the United Kingdom. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will confirm that it is my right and duty to speak on any matters affecting this Parliament.

Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) has been speaking for 15 minutes, using a speech that I do not care whether he or somebody else wrote. However, four hon. Members on this side of the House have a keen interest and involvement in Scottish education. They hope to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I ask you to bear that in mind and to ask the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks to a close.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr.

Amos) who has the Floor is very well aware that other Members wish to speak, but he has a perfect right to speak in a debate that concerns the entire Parliament.

Mr. Amos: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall soon draw my remarks to a close. However, may I point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) that for three and a half hours I have listened very carefully to the debate, that it is only right that I should make my own points as a Member of the party in government, and that I should respond to comments made by Opposition Members. I do not see how I can be out of order. It was wrong of the hon. Gentleman to seek to challenge the Chair on that point.
In the interests of raising standards we must ensure that no institution will be allowed to use the word "university" in its title unless the quality, range and depth of its teaching and research deserve that title. Our aim must be to ensure fair competition between institutions on an equal basis and to attract students and research funds—not to level down in any way. The criteria must be of the strictest kind to retain the confidence of employers, taxpayers, teachers and students in the new institutions. We should not just be interested in the change of an institution's name.
The Bill will encourage greater participation in further and higher education and training and will strengthen the partnership between education and employers. The Government's commitment on funding has always been clear and generous. The grant to Scottish universities for 1991–92 was increased by a massive 11·5 per cent. over the previous year. For example, the grant and tuition fees increase was over 16 per cent. for Dundee and Stirling, over 15 per cent. for St. Andrews and in double figures for Aberdeen, Glasgow and Heriot-Watt. The funding for grant-aided colleges was increased by 14 per cent.
The success of Scottish higher education will be enhanced and its expansion aided by greater competition. The Bill will bring about greater efficiency and quality in both teaching and research; it will become more responsive. The beneficiaries of the Bill will be employers, local communities and their work force, more relevant and community-based skills and courses and the students themselves. It is a timely and necessary Bill which will raise the level of accountability and responsibility for the education of our children. It will enable them to have the best possible education.
The Bill will ensure that education standards in Scotland are raised higher and that Scottish students will continue to benefit from the sound policies of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Alick Buchanan-Smith was my parliamentary colleague, political opponent in party and on other policy matters, and personal friend for more than a quarter of a century. I was touched when Louis Jebb, the obituary editor of The Independent, asked me to contribute Alick's obituary and I would not wish to add to what I wrote in that paper.
I shall address myself, first, to the Government Whip. Will he seek out the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House and quietly put to them the suggestion that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Bill be considered by a special Committee? I travelled down on the same plane as


the Leader of the House, who had been speaking at Gleneagles. He asked me about the Bill in detail and I believe that as a former Education Secretary he has a deep interest in the issues. He may therefore be easily persuaded to accede to the request that was made in good faith by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. There is much confusion about the Bill which we do not believe is our fault. It might be cleared up by the appearance of witnesses at the three sessions that we are allowed. I say to the Whip: please, take this seriously and at least ask the right hon. Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) about that.
Given the constraints time, I shall simply ask the Minister five questions. The first is about research. I am profoundly puzzled about the extraordinary omission of research from the Bill. I cannot find any attempt to address the problem of research and research funding. The Government must tell us, as soon as the Committee stage begins, whether henceforth selection for research is to be conducted on a national or a Scottish basis.
I am not asking these questions just to be difficult. Professor Dale and his colleagues have made me a member of the biological sciences advisory committee of Edinburgh university. Serious people—particularly those who have done well, such as the Edinburgh biologists and Des Smith and his colleagues in physics at Heriot-Watt—are profoundly concerned about the funding of research.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I tried to explain the position in a speech that I made in Edinburgh, at which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milnegavie (Mr. Worthington) was present. It is as the hon. Gentleman would like it to be. Funds for the research councils will be distributed on a United Kingdom basis and Scottish institutions will be able to compete on equal terms. The money that is dispersed by the funding council will be transferred as an additional sum, initially to the Scottish Office and then subsequently to the Scottish funding council. I think that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the funding of the research councils, which will continue on a United Kingdom basis.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for his courteous answer. I shall consider it in print—I am not being distrustful—as it is an important subject. I am glad that the issue of the research councils has been cleared up, but we must consider the selectivity of university research funding.
We must be given some reassurance on clause 33, which places the funding council under a duty to establish a quality assessment committee to advise it on the quality of education that is provided in funded institutions. My second question is whether the assessment committee is to work in tandem with the English structure or as a single council. I believe, as does the brief from the Scottish vice-chancellors—I asked Professor Forty about this by phone on Sunday—that there should be specific national joint committees for medicine, computing and engineering. I interrupted the Secretary of State, who replied "Of course they will keep in touch." I do not think that that is adequate because the issue is two-way traffice in staff between the Scottish universities and universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
My third question is on clause 31(4), which suggests that the Scottish funding council should be responsible for

the Open university's activities in Scotland. We have all had a brief from the Open university and Professor Daniels, but is it sensible to split any part of the Open university? I understand that there would be considerable practical problems in so doing.
My fourth question is on the notion of a Scottish funding council, which I believe has far more to do with the perception of political advantage than the needs of universities, students, staff and researchers. I was not an admirer of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council. I must say bluntly—I can only speak for myself—that the Scottish funding council is misconceived and, in the medium and long-term, harmful to the best interests of the great Scottish universities.
Specifically, how long will it be before the English body, whose financial circumstances are tight—the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) had no answer to this—says, "Under the old system we were quite happy that the Scottish universities should have a net gain of 3,500 English students, and the finance that went with them. Now that we are separate, we shall educate all our English students in English universities, which will be of considerable financial advantage to our system"? It would be only human and understandable if it were to take such an attitude, to the huge disadvantage of Scottish universities, their fourth year, and the United Kingdom.
Many aspects of higher education are national. I fear that in the medium and long term the Bill will cause tension between the English funding council and the Scottish funding council, which will disadvantage students, staff and research. To pacify those who hold such doubts, the Secretary of State said, "It is set firmly in the United Kingdom". That is not true. All sorts of claims may be made for the Bill, but one cannot say that. It is not set firmly in the United Kingdom. Therein could lie many serious difficulties.

Mr. Forsyth: Did the hon. Gentleman mean quality assessment when he was talking about co-operation? I am not clear what he was saying.

Mr. Dalyell: Quality assessment was my second question. The fourth question was on the advantage to Scotland of 3,500 English students·which, incidentally, equals one of our universities. If the English funding council were to take the attitude that is only human for it to take, we should have to consider where the replacement for those students, and the funding that goes with them, would come from. Whatever happens, and whatever one's views, there will be considerable financial consequences. That cannot be gainsaid, but I will give way if the Minister wishes to comment.

Mr. Forsyth: On an earlier point, the hon. Gentleman asked about quality assessment. He asked how the different funding councils could ensure that they operated in a co-ordinated manner. There is no statutory requirement for them to form joint committees, but that would be the expectation. That issue could be pursued in Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues were selected to serve on the Committee, I should be happy to explore that.

Mr. Dalyell: For reasons of time, let us leave that to the Committee. My immediate reaction is that expectations given in good faith by Ministers on the Floor of the House


—I do not doubt the Minister's good faith in this—are often very different from Acts of Parliament. In any case, let us examine that in Committee.
My final question concerns the two-way traffic that has been so beneficial—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—in terms of staff, researchers and students in the mainstream of the Scottish and English universities. We may have a fond expectation that that will continue, but once we have set up two different financial systems I wonder whether that beneficial traffic between the great universities—for example, that in Leeds and the Scottish universities—will continue. I refer to the university in the constituency of one of the Government Whips, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), because Leeds has a great university and I enjoy going there. However, one cannot take for granted that which we have taken for granted in the past.
Truth to tell, I am no friend of the Bill. I predict that the more we examine it in Committee, the more difficulties will creep out from under the various stones as they go on the anvil of parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore end with the hope that the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden is taken seriously. Bluntly, if I were a member of the Committee, one of the witnesses whom I should want to see first is a Scot who was brought up in Dunblane, who did his first degree at the university of Aberdeen and is now the vice-chancellor of London university. I refer to Professor Stewart Sutherland. His views might help us all in discovering the reality and exactly what we are up to. I predict that what we are up to will lead to no good for Scotland.

Mr. John McFall: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am no friend of the Bill, which will set up tensions within the education systems. The Government's rhetoric is laudatory—they say that they are encouraging more young people to enter higher education—but if we consider the Government's record in this Parliament, it is clear that they have placed obstacles in the way of young people. The student grant system is not the least of those obstacles.
I have served on Committees debating Bills dealing with Scottish education since 1987. The first was the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and the second was the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989. Those Bills have not attained the objective desired by the Minister of State, because they were not in keeping with the Scottish system.
Let me deal first with the School Boards (Scotland) Act. During the recess, I visited every school in my constituency—there are about 50—where I listened to the teachers and to the head teachers, and I gained the impression that the Minister's proposals—whether for the five-to-14 programme, for the school board proposals, for the curriculum and assessment or for religious education—were those of a Minister who is once removed from the system, who feels that people should conform to his proposals but who does not know the reality of what is happening in certain schools. The two former education Bills characterise the approach of a Minister who is once removed, and this Bill is exactly the same.
We must realise that the Minister of State pushed the School Boards (Scotland) Act and the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act because the Government wanted to attack local authorities. They sought to decouple local authorities from education.
On higher education, the Government want a self-arching role and strategic coherence, but they are atomising the process in further education. The Bill is a naked political assault on local authorities. We need look no further than the Scottish newspapers this week, in which the Tories—a minimalist political group in Scotland if ever there was one—are setting up a working party to consider the situation so that they can take education out of local authority control and put it under the control of boards.
On further education, the Bill is precipitate because the Government have set up a commission—the Howie commission—to consider the education needs of 16 to 18-year-olds. That commission may undertake a complete review of education provision in Scotland for 16 to 18-year-olds, but the Government are trying to force through a Bill that will change the further education system before receiving the Howie proposals. If there ever was a sensible requirement for not proceeding with the Bill, it is the fact that the Government have given their blessing to the Howie commission to report on 16 to 18-year-olds. It makes nonsense of everything that is now proposed if they go ahead without waiting for its recommendations.
As a result of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act, the Government established new college councils to run the education colleges. They are taking their powers from 1 January 1992, but that has not even been implemented and the Government are changing the system again. They are making the system more centralised, but I believe that the real purpose and focus of the Bill should be on the issue of coherence and fragmentation. The five questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow were about coherence in higher education. I shall consider coherence from the point of view of higher education and from that of further education.
In higher education, there are no doubt specific United Kingdom dimensions. The mechanisms are required in order to maintain the United Kingdom perspective and co-ordination in such matters. My hon. Friend mentioned clinical medicine, in which limits are put on the numbers of people training, as is the case in computing. What we need is not merely the Minister's acceptance that it would be sensible or desirable to consider national joint committees.
The funding will be put to three separate councils—for central institutions, for colleges of education and for universities. The funds have to be maintained, and higher education lecturers and vice-principals are apprehensive that the funds will not be maintained. In providing the funds for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, we need an assurance that the Scottish Office will allocate the funds for distribution and that they will be maintained.
We have had a number of submissions and briefing papers from different bodies. One was from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and I noted its wise and judicious comments. The society's concerns were about the availability of and support for research. That concern cannot be overstated. There is already concern in Scotland about the availability of and support for research in the


humanities. The Scottish funding council and Professor Shaw must immediately give urgent attention to the issue of research. If we are to develop our education system and if we are to be of service to the young people of the next generation, we must have the best research institutions. Through the Bill, we risk devaluing research facilities.
I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of the abolition of the binary line between further and higher education. However, without a strategic overview of the system, that could come to little. With the proposed atomisation, we shall not get that strategic overview.
We have received comments from the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped about further education. Further education is currently a part of the integrated system of education for special needs, alongside schools and social work services. In my constituency, I have been working with a group of special needs pupils and their parents as part of that service. Under the present integrated system, it is hard enough to ensure the transition from school to further education for special needs students. However. it will be even harder under the fragmented system that the Minister is about to adopt.
At present, people can go, following assessment. to any of the services or to a combination of them. The proposed separate institutions of further education will not be part of the integrated system. The Bill says that institutions for further education should "have regard" to the needs of students with learning difficulties, but in the new set-up the further education institution will not be involved in the assessment of people's needs or in the planning of services.
The Minister should think of the comments of Sir Roy Griffiths when he examined the community care programme. He identified the multiplicity of agencies and the lack of co-ordination as two of the key failures in community care policy. Just as those failures inhibited community care, so they will inhibit education.
The Minister proposes to allow colleges of further education to set up their own mission statements, proposals and college development plans. However, they will not have to report them to a local authority or even to the Secretary of State. That is a grave omission.
There is fragmentation rather than coherence in the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the need for a Special Standing Committee is urgent, not as a delaying tactic, but to ensure that we have examined every avenue in detail and that we are satisfied with what the Secretary of State proposes. The Minister would do his credibility no harm tonight by accepting that proposal, not on a party political basis, but as an exercise in intellectual investigation which would enable us to get the Bill right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said that the university title which will be accorded to polytechnics must not be an empty honour. It will be without planning, integration, funding and, above all, the involvement of individuals who are affected by the change. Sadly, the Minister has not been directly involved in the changes to education that he has proposed since 1987. I should like the Minister to think again, so that he becomes involved and best serves the interests of the pupils, of the parents, of the students and of the staff of our universities and colleges in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his maiden speech, especially as his is the most recent by-election victory in Scotland since my own. It is 50 weeks today since I made my maiden speech and I remember it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember his effective and intelligent maiden speech with pride.
I shall be brief, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak and, although I shall concentrate my remarks on further education, I should like to say something first about higher education, and especially about Paisley college. When the Minister of State replies, I should be grateful if he could confirm that Paisley college will have university status, because it well deserves it. It has an excellent record, not only of academic achievement, but in research and in its involvement in the local community and with the local authorities. That gives the lie to the premise in the Bill that colleges and business interests must work separately from those of local authorities and their elected councillors. In both Paisley and Reid Kerr colleges, we have experience of the local authorities working with the colleges on economic development matters. Professor Richard Shaw is the principal of Paisley college and leads an excellent team there. I hope that the Minister of State will bear what I have said in mind when he makes what I hope will be a formal announcement tonight.
There is nothing in the Bill to deal with some of the difficult problems facing Paisley college. The hardship fund, for example, always runs out before the end of the year and mature students therefore find it difficult to study. At the moment, some students at Paisley college are on rent strike because of the quality of the residential accommodation. There are outside toilets, but the college does not have the money to deal with that problem. Indeed, at the current level of investment, it will take decades to solve such problems and, although I hope that such problems can be dealt with, nothing in the Bill offers any hope of that.
Before being elected to the House I spent 10 years first as a lecturer and then as a senior lecturer at Langside college in Glasgow. During the decade 1980–90 that I worked in further education in Scotland, the Government's record seemed to be one of making change for change's sake. When I started teaching horticulture at Langside college, I taught the City and Guilds scheme—an old scheme—that was based on specific learning objectives because that was the fashion at that time. About a year later, we went on to a new scheme that was based on general learning objectives because that was the fashion then. That was followed by Scotec, which returned to the specific learning objectives of two years earlier, but eventually that was scrapped after another two years and replaced by Scotvec, which returned to general learning objectives, which have been amended ever since. As I still keep in touch with many of my former colleagues from further education, I can advise the Minister of State sincerely that further education needs a period of consolidation so that lecturers can have an opportunity to develop quality courses. We cannot continue to make change for change's sake.
There has also been a piecemeal development of the management structure in further education. There does not seem to be a long-term strategy to ensure that quality


is paramount in the service. There have been constant changes during the past five years. I believe that there have been three or four changes in the management structure of my old college during that time.
I used to have a poster on the wall of my office at Langside college, reading:
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.
I am sure that when Petronius Arbiter wrote that in 200 BC, he did not know that it would become the Tory party's official policy on further education.
Further education in Scotland has been the victim of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Government make changes; the changes do not work, so they make further changes —and so the cycle continues. I advise the Minister of State in all sincerity that he must await the publication of the Howie report on further education so that we can take a strategic overview and stop this policy of piecemeal development and constant change.
The structure proposed in the Bill will be fragmented. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will look after vocational education across 40-odd colleges. At the same time local authorities will retain responsibility for community education and leisure education. How will that black and white divide be made? There are many shades of grey. When I taught horticulture some people came to classes in the evening because their employers sent them or because they wanted to start a business. Others in the class came because they wanted to pursue a leisure interest. Would the Minister classify that as a leisure or a vocational course? Who should operate it—the college or the local authority?
I have a great deal more to say, but I am conscious that many hon. Members have sat here throughout the debate waiting to speak. I simply wish to recall one event that sums up the Government's attitude to further education. Shortly before I left the college, I recall filling in a form that emanated from a Government Department. I came across a section that asked me to fill in the number of revenue-earning units in the college. I did not know what it meant, so I asked my boss. It turned out that revenue-earning units were students. The Bill paves the way for more of that.
I remember campaigning under the slogan, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance". The Government have tried ignorance and it has not worked.

Mr. Mike Watson: I shall be brief and address my remarks only to higher education because my two colleagues concentrated on further education, although I resent having to do so after sitting here for four and a half hours without having the opportunity to speak because of the self-indulgence of three other speakers who took almost half an hour each.
It would be improper of me not to commend the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his maiden speech. I made my own just two and a half years ago, so I know how nervous he must have been. It was a

well prepared and well delivered speech and he certainly gave no impression of nervousness. I commend him for that.
I shall make one exception to what I said about speaking only on higher education. I welcome the establishment of funding councils for further and higher education throughout the United Kingdom. However, why should there be only one council for Scotland? England and Wales will each have separate funding councils for further and higher education, but in Scotland there is no provision for a further education funding council. The Secretary of State is apparently unwilling to trust his place men and place women—he wants to keep absolute control in his own hands. There can be no justification for that. I hope that that is one aspect of the Bill which will be amended in Committee.
Higher education will have its own funding council and I welcome that. It is a matter of some satisfaction that the Government have finally accepted the need to provide a separate funding body for Scottish universities. It is none the less a matter of some regret that they have not fully met the recommendation made in 1984 by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council that the council should have a planning as well as a funding remit. I fail to see how those functions can be separated. Surely strategic aims should determine the priorities which direct funding. Without that remit, the funding council will be an entirely reactive body which depends on funding allocations to circumscribe its planning. Tying one hand behind its back will prevent it from adopting the proactive role which is crucial to the co-ordinated development of higher education in Scotland.
I welcome the provision to end the binary divide. But that divide will not simply disappear overnight when the Bill receives Royal Assent. The divide has surely been one of resources as much as anything else over the years. We require assurances from the Minister about what will result from ending it. There is a real danger that without adequate funding there will be a levelling downwards to the institutions which are now centrally funded. The emphasis must surely be on a levelling upwards of standards in both teaching and research.
Within the university sector, the need to maximise free income has already resulted in the squeezing of educational standards. There is no shortage of examples of overcrowding, especially in Scotland, resulting in increased pressure on students and staff with consequent detriment to standards. That trend must be reversed, but it can be done only through providing resources in proportion with increased student numbers.
I referred to research some moments ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, incredibly there is no mention of it in the 60 pages of the Bill. What is to happen to the share of research contracts which have come to Scottish universities in recent years? In the Scottish Grand Committee debate in June I asked the Minister for an assurance that Scotland's share of research funding would at least be maintained. I received no assurance then, so I repeat the question now. What guarantees are there that Scottish universities will not lose as a result of this legislation? If the expected number of former college institutions and polytechnics are granted university status, there will be around 80 of them. That is twice the present number, yet research funding is likely to remain static at best. There must be a danger that that will lead to a two-tier system among universities. Those


already possessing a strong research base will be best placed to capitalise on it. As other hon. Members have warned, there will be an unofficial binary divide. If the Minister believes that that will not happen, I challenge him to explain how it might be avoided.
On the creation of a new wave of universities, like many other hon. Members, I fully support the claim of Dundee institute of technology to have the right to assume university status. There is little that I could usefully add to the eloquent and well-informed contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about one of his local institutions. Dundee institute of technology is eminently qualified to compete in the marketplace which Scottish education has unfortunately become, provided that it has the opportunity to do so from a level playing field. It must not be denied that right.
Several other aspects of the Bill require clarification and amendment, not least the question of resources for the Open university in Scotland and adequate funding for adult and continuing education. Those and other issues will be vigorously pursued in Committee, when the Minister and his colleagues will be required to display a greater understanding of the real needs of post-school education in our country.

Mr. Tom Clarke: There seems to be a tradition that the hon. Member for Monklands, West should speak last in Scottish debates.

Mr. Dewar: A position of honour.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) confirms that that is a position of honour. It allows me to reflect on the debate. Although there were numerous excellent speeches —especially from Opposition Members—in complete candour I must say that we have witnessed an abuse of procedure this evening. Hon. Members who appeared after the opening speeches spoke for half an hour and then disappeared, have not reappeared—

Sir Hector Monro: They are in Committee.

Mr. Clarke: That is no reflection on the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who spoke well and made a good contribution to the debate. However, this is no way to conduct Scottish business and to deal with matters as important as education in Scotland. Certainly it is no way to deal with further or higher education. The plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden for a Special Standing Committee to consider the Bill might be seen as compensation for the appalling way in which the debate on Second Reading has been conducted by Conservative Members.
I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on a moving, fluent and sincere maiden speech. We all join him in the comments that he made about the late Alick Buchanan-Smith, a man of outstanding integrity and decency and a great parliamentarian who will be long remembered.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will not mind if, in the short time available to me, I attempt to emulate his style, albeit inadequately, by asking the Minister five questions. They are the questions that the Government have not yet answered and

which are crucial to the debate—a debate which will continue long after the general election, which cannot be far away. Whatever decision we reach about the Bill, this will not be the last word on further and higher education in Scotland. That debate will continue because we are that type of people in Scotland.
I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to ask a question, which I am glad the hon. Member for Dumfries repeated: why is the Secretary of State leaving education authorities with debt charges? As hours have gone by since that question was put, perhaps we may receive a more considered, measured reply. It is wrong that local authorities, having lost the assets of further education, should be asked to continue to pay those debt charges. It flies in the face of any decent approach to local government finance. It is unacceptable. Therefore, I am not surprised that, whereas the Secretary of State and some of his supporters claim that everybody agrees with the Bill, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in its paper states:
The Convention takes the view that the timing of the Bill is wholly inappropriate.
If the Government stick to their view on debt repayment, I certainly agree with COSLA.
My second question is: how will the Secretary of State ensure that bursaries will tie in with college development plans and courses? That is important. If the Government continue with their proposals, those responsible for the payment of bursaries will not also be responsible for deciding courses or strategy. Therefore, there will be an absence of coherence, which the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped has already criticised in its paper. There cannot be a more important aspect of the financing of students than that affecting students with special needs. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position when he replies.
My third question is: how will the Secretary of State ensure coherent and strategic planning, particularly in relation to post-16 activities in schools, adult education and special education? What my hon. Friends have already said about people with learning difficulties certainly applies. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) was eloquent on that point. Education should be for living. I do not support the view that Coatbridge college is there merely to supply whatever industry may exist. People used to erect notices outside their factories, saying "Hands Wanted"; not people, minds, personalities or individual contributions wanted. I fear that that is the real thrust of the Bill.
My fourth question is: will education authorities receive enough resources through the rate support grant for adult education? Again, that is a perfectly fair question. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say, as he did, that these matters are already being dealt with. They are not identified or ring-fenced.
The body of people is not to be elected or accountable, but appointed by the Secretary of State in the same undemocratic way in which the Government have appointed their own people to the health boards and ignored the views of local people. In neither Lanarkshire nor Glasgow health authorities—I do not wish to reflect on those who give of their time—do we have people who would have been elected to either district or regional councils. If we are to have devolution as the Secretary of State said, how can we judge the quality of decision taking —nobody has made any attempt to pretend that this is real


representation—when those appointed are put there presumably to carry out Government policy as it is seen by those temporarily in control at St. Andrew's house.
My fifth question is: will the Secretary of State agree that education authorities should be represented as of right on college councils at officer and member level? I say that without any feeling of apology or humility, having been in local government. Despite what is often said by Conservative Members, and reflected in their legislation, there are many excellent people in local government at elected and member level. Why they should be excluded from making an input into something as important as further and community education I do not understand and do not accept.
In our society today, when we have so many problems —about employment, the quality of life, the environment and with people feeling that there is an absence of hope and a lack of fulfillment—young people are worried about our approach to education in Scotland. The Government may use the guillotine, the whip and parliamentary procedure in the hope that issues such as that will go away. They will not. Education is fundamental to the realisation of true fulfilment. We will continue to pursue that point.

Mr. Tony Worthington: This has been an interesting debate. It has been dominated by the idea that we have special procedures which enable us to consider a measure such as this in detail. The Bill involves matters which really need the Select Committee rather than the Standing Committee procedure.
I am delighted to welcome to our proceedings the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen), who has the inestimable advantage of having entered through a by-election. It is easier for us to remember the name of his constituency, the hon. Gentleman having joined us recently. I pay tribute to Alick Buchanan-Smith. The new hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside has a hard act to follow. Others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), paid tribute to Mr. Buchanan-Smith. I am sure that the new hon. Member for that constituency will have difficulty being as effective a Member of the Opposition as his predecessor.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside reminded us of the mess that has occurred over Robert Gordon's, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) told us about the Dundee institute of technology. We believe that the future of such institutions could have been dealt with more sympathetically.
My hon. Friends and I totally oppose the principle of taking further education out of the control of regional councils, and no educational case has been made out for such a move. The Bill is completely friendless on that issue. Virtually nobody in Scotland is willing to give house room to the further education parts of the Bill. It is another example of the Government taking the opportunity to centralise control and undermine local accountability.
What the Government propose is unworkable. In May, it was firmly proposed in the White Paper that local councils should have responsibility only for social and recreational provision. Within weeks, further education colleges, their councils and regional councils were told that

they could provide all forms of further education. That showed that the Government had not thought the matter through.
The Government's proposal to separate further education and place it under the control of the Secretary of State is ham-fisted. It shows the right hon. Gentleman's total failure to understand what is happening in Scottish education. The regions have been successfully loosening the boundaries and getting the benefits of better links between secondary, further and community education. What matters is that students get the service, not which heading the service comes under. For example, I visited Aboyne in Grampian recently—not because of the by-election but out of diligence—and saw that the community school there works well, offering all forms of education on the same premises. Similarly, the adult education in schools in Strathclyde would previously have been classified as further education, but the adults now receive the education that they need in what is called a "secondary school".
The Government's attempt to divide vocational and non-vocational education is simply silly. Schools are vocational as well as academic, and further education colleges are vocational as well as non-vocational. Are languages vocational or non-vocational? They are both, depending on the use to which they are put. It is particularly absurd that the Bill should be introduced within weeks of the Howie committee reporting on the upper stages of secondary education, not just on the future of highers but on the relationship of highers with vocational education.
Let us look again at the contribution and development of Scotvec modules in schools. Something extraordinary has occurred. They are designed explicitly for vocational qualifications and for FE colleges and are being taken in vast numbers in schools. In 1989–90, 40 per cent. of the candidates for Scotvec modules were entered from schools. That was a 121 per cent. increase in a two-year period. There is every reason to think that the majority of candidates taking Scotvec module vocational education will soon be from schools, if that is not so already.
There is a considerable overlap in the most popular modules in FE education. They include computer studes, word processing and communication. It is illogical and absurd to divide education as the Government seek to do. How are we to distinguish between secondary and further education? It makes no sense to centralise control in Edinburgh at this stage. We are even to have the absurdity of cash changing hands between further, community and secondary education for the use of facilities. That is nonsense. Who will decide whether and how the regions will be reimbursed if they use their power to offer vocational education?
An English leaflet-there is no Scottish leaflet says:
LEAs would have the power to fund further education of all kinds, from within the resources available to them, to complement that provided through the Councils".
It is utter nonsense to have two authorities doing the same work. Have the Government even considered where the colleges are? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is not here now, said that the people of Oban would prefer to look after education in Oban, not realising that the closest FE college to Oban was Clydebank. I do not know whether the closest college to Tiree is Clydebank or Greenock, but it is not a matter of the people of Tiree looking after Tiree's concerns.
At the Bill's Committee stage the Labour party will move that there should be a further education funding council. It is essential that we put at the heart of the matter in Scotland people who know about further education. Why is there to be a further education funding council with regional committees for England and a further education funding council for Wales, but not one for Scotland?

Mr. Sam Galbraith: There are enough Tories left to put on them.

Mr. Worthington: I do not know where the Minister of State will find the 450 extra Tory party members whom he needs to go on the college councils. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, he could not even find 35 young Tories to go to his conference, wherever it was.
The Government's attitude to the colleges' capital debts is an example of how they regard local government. That subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clark). It is a full illustration of how local government has been treated in the past 12 years. The Government are taking away the colleges but leaving the local authorities with a debt. As has been said, that is like repossessing people's houses but leaving them with the mortgage to pay.
The White Paper said that it will be complex and time consuming to identify and separate the charges related to college property. I travelled round the regions in the summer. At one region I asked whether it would be complex and time consuming to separate the debts. I was asked if I had a minute to spare. I talked to those in another region who said that they had already completed the process. All the local authorities have already done so.
I misled the House earlier when I said that the total debt outstanding was £86 million; it is not, it was £87,156,000 at March 31. The debt on Falkirk college is £1·9 million and that on Clackmannan is £388,000. If the reason for keeping the debts with the local authorities is because to do otherwise would be complicated and time consuming, we have solved the problem. Does the Minister agree that, debts as well as assets will be considered in Committee?
We support moving the control of higher education to Scotland and the end of the binary divide. In Committee we shall test out the Government's intentions all the way because we are convinced that the Bill's purpose is to level down, not level up. The chasm at the centre of the legislation is the Government's refusal to consider the issue of resources. As students come from less traditional backgrounds and follow less traditional routes, there is a powerful case for more, not fewer, resources.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, we shall also press the Government to spell out their attitude to research. The binary divide cannot be abolished by word—it needs action to do so. The Government are making two conflicting statements. They say, first, that they are abolishing the binary divide and, secondly, that they expect institutions to continue in the same way. The first statement involves dynamic change and the other involves stability—which are we to believe? When the Labour party proposed abolishing the binary divide during debates on the Education Reform Act 1988, it was in the expectation that there would be resource implications to cope with the levelling up required. However, in the Bill the Government anticipate that the financial effects of their proposals will be roughly neutral.
Formidable forces are concentrating research into fewer and fewer universities. Do the Government welcome that? Is it desirable? Will it continue? The Government say nothing. Apparently, there is to be more selectivity in the basic research budget distributed by the Universities Funding Council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, at present about a third of the income from the UFC is used for basic research. However, in the United Kingdom, instead of about 45 universities competing for the research budget, there will be 90. In Scotland, instead of eight universities, there will be 12 universities and 13 central institutions competing for the same research money. Meanwhile, the Government say nothing.
It is naive in the extreme to believe that polytechnics will simply continue their existing mission. Throughout the world, research is considered to be top of the heap. As an academic exercise, research is seen as a higher prestige activity than teaching. All institutions will seek to add to their research. It is inevitable that polytechnic staff will seek to increase the research component of their work.
The Government may say that some institutions will become teaching institutions, but such centres are not cheap. Good teaching universities elsewhere in the world achieve success by devoting large amounts of human and physical resources to research. Such universities exist in America, but there the percentage of undergraduate or postgraduate students at acknowledged research univer-sities is, in proportional terms, equal to the entire number of students here.
We are falling behind all the time on research. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology—these are not moderate words—said:
We think that the 1991–92 science budget falls far short of what is required to provide the basis for the continuing development of the country's science base.
There is no fat left in the system to absorb or disguise the present crisis. We are concerned about the extent to which there has already been a levelling down. But a central problem with the Bill is that there is no commitment by the Government to a planning function for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.
I received a briefing from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, not a body with which I have had much contact. It said:
The Funding Council should actively encourage rationalisation, elimination of unnecessary duplication, co-operation in teaching and research, in innovation.
It should be dealing with issues such as the highlands and islands university. We believe that firm planning powers should be unambiguously added to the powers of the council and we shall be tabling the appropriate amendments to that effect in Committee.
We shall also be seeking to remove from the Government the unnecessary and suspicious interference powers which the Secretary of State is taking and on which the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then Secretary of State for Education, backed down in 1988. For the sake of academic freedom, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council must be an effective buffer between politicians and the colleges. The Government do not need the powers and we shall seek to remove them.
It is rumoured that section 77(2) of the English legislation which refers to particular directional powers was omitted from the Scottish legislation in error. I hope that in the short time that the Minister has to reply he will assure us that in Committee he will not include that


ominous power in the English legislation which gives the Secretary of State power to direct funds or give instructions to particular institutions. We set up a funding council because it is vital to a free society that we have free, strong, autonomous universities which can question and quarrel with received wisdom.
We cannot vote for the Bill on Second Reading. The part relating to further education is half-baked, ham-fisted and yet more centralising imperialism from the Secretary of State. It is hopelessly inadequate in its perception of further and adult education. The business community has no right to control further education, and it does not want to. It is an important beneficiary of further education and it must contribute, but it is not the customer, as the White Paper says. The customers are the students and their needs. No case has been made for this centralisation.
On higher education, it is right that controls should be switched to Scotland and that the binary divide should be abolished, but the Government are abolishing the binary divide in order to level down—there is not the necessary commitment to make the change work. We want much stronger planning powers for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and we deeply distrust the powers of interference that the Government are taking.
The Bill will be introduced by the Government, but it will be acted on by an incoming Labour Government, from which Scotland can take great comfort.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) described my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as an imperialist. That is the kind of language that I thought had gone out of fashion in the Labour party.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his excellent maiden speech, so eloquently delivered. I thank him, I think on behalf of the whole House, for the tribute that he paid to Alick Buchanan-Smith. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy his time as a Member of Parliament and I look forward to his contributions to our debates.
The hon. Gentleman made a couple of points on the Bill to which I wish to respond. He suggested that the changes have something to do with keeping down the level of the poll tax. Responsibility for the provision of further education will be removed from local government, which will not get the money either. The money will not go to local authorities, so the effect will be neutral. There will be no saving in terms of money raised or money spent.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to dispel the doubts surrounding Robert Gordon's institute of technology. As I said during the by-election campaign, when I happened to be visiting Aberdeen on ministerial business, to fulfil a long-standing engagement at RGIT, the only people who seem to be raising doubts are politicians in the north-east. Now that the criteria have been published, we have not, so far as I am aware, received any representations that they should be tougher—and as the hon. Gentleman knows, RGIT would comfortably meet them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out that this is a major devolutionary measure that involves a vast transfer of power to Scotland.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friend is in Committee. He pointed out that it will also give considerable power to further education colleges themselves.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that the Opposition have been mealy-mouthed. We thought that they would welcome the Bill, which gives tremendous power to the Scottish Office and to the institutions concerned to fashion further and higher education in the interests of Scotland as a whole.
It was obvious from the debate that there would be some division. The Government introduced the Bill because my right hon. and hon. Friends believe in extending equality of opportunity, whereas Opposition Members do not.

Mr. McFall: That is ridiculous.

Mr. Forsyth: I was quoting the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, speaking for himself, is on record as saying:
We do not believe in equality of opportunity. We are the party of equality.
He was right. Opposition Members believe in a levelling down, whereas we believe in competition and the opportunity to provide for equality of opportunity.
We heard a great deal from the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Clydebank and Milngavie about the need for more resources before any improvements can be made to higher education. That could not be described as a surprising line. It is the line that Labour Members always take—it is their standard gambit.
We heard tonight echoes of previous debates. I refer to a statement made by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on 8 July 1981.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry that Labour Members are embarrassed by their leader's words. He said:
It is obvious that the opportunities for higher education are being stolen from thousands who have qualified for it, who have aspired to it and who, even today, in schools and colleges throughout the country, are working towards getting the places that the Government are taking away."—[Official Report, 8 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 462.]
Even more striking, on 17 March 1982, a certain Mr. Bruce Millan told the House:
Whatever is happening, the one thing that we can be sure of is that central institutions, any more than the universities or colleges of education, will not be able to meet the demand for qualified young people leaving school who want to enter them. In particular, they will not be able to meet the demand from those young people who are denied university and college of education places because of the university and college cuts. There will be no solution to the Scottish problems through the central institutions".—[Official Report, 17 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 363.]
So said a former Labour Secretary of State.
The more perceptive right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that those remarks were made at the beginning of a period that saw a 40 per cent. increase in higher education for students in Scotland. So much for the cuts and the piteous plight of young people denied their place in education that we were told about.
The Opposition were wrong then, just as they are wrong now. The Government's obvious success was based on a combination of increased funding and considerable efficiency gains.

Mr. Dewar: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress. He asked a whole range of questions, and I will answer all of them.
The Government's policy will continue to deliver more places for students, generate efficiency gains, and enhance the quality and relevance of the higher education that is offered. The Bill is a part of reforms that are intended to ensure that students have choice, and are able to acquire the skills that are needed. It will also enable our institutions of learning to engage in partnerships with business and commerce.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in the Chamber. I greatly admire his policies on education: we find ourselves agreeing on such matters as primary testing and publishing league tables. I wish that he would have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, who says the opposite north of the border from what the hon. Member for Blackburn says south of the border.

Mr. Worthington: We want devolution.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he must still answer the West Lothian question that was asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The answer, of course, would prevent him from continuing to prop up a Labour Government with a majority north of the border.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No; I want to make my point about the Labour party in Scotland and the Labour party in England.
The Labour party in England has a clear policy on further education. The hon. Member for Blackburn seems embarrassed by mention of that, but the English Labour party supports the creation of corporate colleges. The only difference between its policy and ours is our wish to fund colleges on a national basis to avoid local anomalies. The hon. Gentleman was lucky not to be present for the debate; there has been speech after speech condemning the idea of corporate colleges, which apparently are good enough for England but quite inappropriate for Scotland.
I waited in vain to hear what Labour's policy for Scotland was. The truth is that there is no such policy. Labour has said that it will repeal part I of the Bill, but it is bereft of any alternative ideas. That will not do: it displays complete contempt for the further education colleges in Scotland that support our proposals to give them greater freedom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) may be unaware of it, but the further education colleges in Scotland have welcomed our proposals.
I think that I know the reasons for the difference in policy between those north and south of the border, and for the policy vacuum. The Labour party's agenda in Scotland is dictated by the trade unions and Labour authorities, which fear our proposals because they would diminish their traditional fiefdoms.

Mr. Worthington: I assume that, when the Minister refers to the colleges, he means the college principals.
I wonder whether he has seen the article by the chairman of the Scottish branch of the Association of Principals of Further Education Colleges, Mr. Craig Brown, who said:

Even before the printed version is freely available, the Bill is getting a worse press than Saddam Hussein. No one has a good word to say for it. I think the Bill was inevitable. The 1989 Act was such an awful piece of legislation that its successor was inevitable.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not recall a piece of legislation that I have taken through the House that has not had a worse press than Saddam Hussein north of the border. Why did the Opposition oppose the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 in Committee? Why did they argue against school boards, and why did they change their minds? Was it a coincidence that they did so at the same time as the Educational Institute of Scotland and the unions? Labour does what the unions tell it to do. At least the hon. Member for Blackburn thinks about parents and students, which is why his agenda is closer to ours than that of the hon. Member for Garscadden.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Minister says that Labour changed its mind about school boards. It is the Minister who changed his mind. He was the author of the ceiling powers that suddenly evaporated when the public made it clear that they would not wear it.

Mr. Forsyth: Strathclyde regional council, controlled by Labour, has brought in ceiling powers on a voluntary basis, and is delegating those powers to its school boards.
I pay tribute to the role played by local authorities in developing further education. Unfortunately, like over-protective nannies who want to smother their charges' development, they have drawn up a list of do's and dont's for further education colleges: "You must use local authority architects and lawyers; you must pay staff at nationally agreed rates, and not reward good perfor-mance; you must employ certain categories of staff, even if it means employing lecturers for routine administrative tasks." That is the dead end and dead hand of local authority bureaucracy. We seek to introduce flexibility, whereas the Opposition wish to ensure rigidity. For the Labour party, self-government is anathema, whether it is in local authority further education colleges, in self-governing schools, or in self-governing hospitals. The Opposition cannot stand the idea of people making their own decisions. Napier and Glasgow polytechnics, shortly to become universities, are an example of what happens when a local authority-run institution of further education breaks away and is allowed to take its own decisions. It can grow and prosper, to the point of becoming a university.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that he was very concerned about academic freedom. So did the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). There is a notion that the conditions of grant amount to a new imposition, but there is nothing new about conditions being attached to grants and there is nothing new about powers of direction. The Government have always had powers of direction over the University Grants Committee. It is absurd of the Opposition to attack the Government in support of academic freedom when they complain at the same time that we are not giving a sufficiently strong planning role to the funding council.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the Government must allow the institutions to get on with their business and must not interfere with their funding and then go on to say that the Government are not doing enough planning. According to the Opposition, we should hand


over £600 million a year to the institutions and not even inquire what they do with the money—because that would amount to interfering with academic freedom—but we should set up a body that would interfere with the same institutions—close them, merge them, move them, redirect them. According to the Opposition, that is planning, not an attack on academic freedom.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me why the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report is to be implemented now: was it not a little late in the day to do so? There is consensus throughout the higher education system that that is desirable. It would have been wrong to go ahead with it, as well as impracticable, while some universities opposed it. Furthermore, the college sector has gained in maturity. The hon. Member for Garscadden does not seem to be interested in the reply, but I must tell him that many colleges are now able to assume degree-awarding powers. The establishment of autonomous boards has led to stronger management. Changes to the funding system have led to greater efficiency and effectiveness.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked about Professor Shaw's terms of appointment. They are two days a week for an initial three-year term from April 1992. The hon. Gentleman then asked about funding: how the resources would be decided, how much, what the future level of resources would be and what research funding changes would be made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that we are increasing funding by 12 per cent. Resources will be transferred to the Scottish Office from the Department of Education and Science to take account of responsibility for the universities. In subsequent years resources will be a matter for the Secretary of State; they will be part of the block. Future levels of resources depend upon which Government are in power. If, as I expect, we are in power, our economy will create the wealth from which our universities and colleges will benefit.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth asked why the Bill does not include a duty that the Secretary of State should provide language courses for ethnic minorities. Clause 1 provides for that, in so far as it imposes that duty on the Secretary of State.
The Bill represents a major advance in the Government's continued assault on the barriers to opportunity that still exist in our society. We are developing a post-school system that will deliver high-quality education to all those with the ability, motivation and maturity to benefit from it. The life chance of further and higher education will be available to students, whatever their backgrounds or age. There is no place in Conservative Scotland for the outmoded and snobbish attitudes that give to the practical an inferior status to the theoretical. These attitudes are wrong in themselves. They also damage our country's ability to compete and win in international markets.
The Government's radical approach to education is already showing success. There are record numbers of students in higher and further education. We shall go further: we shall remove the restraints on institutions and give them the freedom to compete to provide the education that the nation needs and our students deserve.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 220, Noes 307.

Division No. 17]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Flannery, Martin


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galbraith, Sam


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Bellotti, David
Graham, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benton, Joseph
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Hain, Peter


Blair, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Geraint


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
lllsley, Eric


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles


Corbett, Robin
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cox, Tom
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fearn, Ronald
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan






Michael, Alun
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sillars, Jim


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stephen, Nicol


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L.
Wallace, James


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walley, Joan


Prescott, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terence
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Allen McKay.


Salmond, Alex





NOES


Adley, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Allason, Rupert
Butler, Chris


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butterfiil, John


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre P'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Benyon, W.
Cran, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fallon, Michael





Farr, Sir John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Mills, lain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Harris, David
Mudd, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Irving, Sir Charles
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)






Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tredinnick, David


Shelton, Sir William
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton,)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and


Townsend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Dewar.]

The House divided: Ayes, 222 Noes 303.

Division No. 18]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Bellotti, David
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Crowther, Stan


Benton, Joseph
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alistair


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dixon, Don





Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
McMaster, Gordon


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Marek, Dr John


Enright, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hain, Peter
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Rooney, Terence


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hood, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Howells, Geraint
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Salmond, Alex


Hoyle, Doug
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Sillars, Jim


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steinberg, Gerry


Kennedy, Charles
Stephen, Nicol


Kilfoyle, Peter
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Strang, Gavin


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Vaz, Keith


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wallace, James


Lewis, Terry
Walley, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAllion, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McCartney, Ian
Wilson, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Winnick, David


McFall, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKelvey, William
Worthington, Tony






Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eggar, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Rfbert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
French, Douglas


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Bidwell, Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hague, William


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Chope, Christopher
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irvine, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Irving, Sir Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert


Dover, Den
Janman, Tim





Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, Sir William


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Li 1 ley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speller, Tony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maclean, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, lain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Sir Charles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Walden, George


Needham, Richard
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Warren, Kenneth


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wells, Bowen


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wilkinson, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Raffan, Keith



Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Redwood, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

PETITION

RU486

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I wish to present a petition signed by 300 people who attended the LIFE national conference at Leamington Spa—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members not remaining for the petition and the Adjournment debate please leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Hargreaves: They wish to express their concern at the licensing of the drug RU486, which, far from being a simple advance for women's liberation, is still an experimental drug with known and unknown risks to women. The signatories
deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings, and … express … grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of … RU486 and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Aborted Babies (Disposal)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment tonight the methods of disposal of the human remains of aborted babies. It is the subject of early-day motion 79, which is jointly sponsored by myself and Members in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
I know that it is the intention of the Father of the House, who is the president of the all-party Pro-Life group, to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that it will also be possible for the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the chairman of the group, and other hon. Members to participate in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have supported me by being here this evening to show their abhorrence of current practices in abortion clinics and national health service hospitals.
To place the debate in context, it is worth recording that, this year alone, abortionism will be responsible for more deaths than malnutrition, hunger and poverty combined. In Britain, it totals 184,000 deaths—some 600 unborn babies killed each and every day. Apart from the ethical questions raised by that massive number of abortions, there is also the practical question of the disposal of their remains.
Earlier this year, I complained to the chief environmental health officer of Liverpool city council, Mr. Glyn Thompson, about the use of an incinerator at the Parkfield road abortion clinic in Sefton Park in my constituency. In answer to my inquiries about the incinerator, he replied on 19 November:
This incinerator does not meet current standards and so there is no question of the facility being used with the Council's approval.
Residents in the area had complained about the high level of air pollution.
In September, new regulations were introduced to control the use of incinerators. When the incinerator no longer seemed to be being used, I went with Councillor John Livingston, a local Labour councillor and Pro-Life supporter, to ask the public health investigators what methods were being used to dispose of the remains of aborted children. It was then that the public health inspectors notified me that a macerator was being used. For hon. Members who do not know what that entails, I shall explain. A macerator is a grinding machine. The remains of aborted babies are placed in a macerator, pulped and ground down and then discharged into the neighbourhood's sewers and drains.
I wrote to the National Rivers Authority. Dr. Leeming, the environmental quality manager, replying to my constituent, Mr. Cooney of Hadassah grove, who also wrote complaining, said that he shared my concern, but that the matter was entirely for North West Water. I then wrote to Mr. Brian Alexander, the managing director, who said:
We would normally seek to use our influence to prevent or stop a practice which we believed might offend our customers or the community. 


As you know, this is the action we were proposing in this particular case, and there was an immediate cessation of the practice.
I also tabled questions to the Minister, who unfortunately is unable to be here this evening. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate.
I received a further letter from Mr. Brian Alexander, again via Mr. Cooney, dated 18 November. In it, Mr. Alexander said:
I doubt the existence of such evidence and therefore our ability to sustain any action.
In answer to the question whether it was possible to prosecute those responsible for discharging the remains into the local sewers, he said:
It is clear that the present legislation with which we arc concerned is not designed to deal with this type of issue. In the circumstances we have expressed these views to the Department of Health.
Meanwhile, in answer to the questions I tabled, the Minister said of maceration:
This method has been used in a small number of private sector approved places since the early 1970s."—[Official Report, 5 November 1991; Vol. 198 c. 105.]
It is extraordinary that North West Water says that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute and that the Department, having been notified by North West Water, admitted that this method has been in use since 19'10 but it had been unable and sufficiently unconcerned about the problem to do anything whatever about it.
Although the Minister promised an immediate cessation, that will not be implemented in some cases until next January. Nor do we know how it will be enforced. I hope that the Under-Secretary will turn his mind to that when he replies.
Although I was told in a parliamentary reply on 8 November that that method of disposal was no longer considered appropriate, the Minister told me that compliance would be further monitored through regular, unannounced inspections by the Department's medical, nursing and investigative officers. But if the same methods will be used as have been for the last 21 years, it is difficult to have much confidence in that watchdog carrying out the monitoring exercise. The very people who have been responsible for allowing those practices will, we are told, be responsible in the future.
What now'? If incineration is to be the preferred method, as I was told on 5 November in answer to another parliamentary question, and if incineration is to replace maceration, what issues does that pose? This clinic, Parkfield road, has hired a waste disposal company, Quick Ways Waste of Coburg dock, which every day takes shipments of unborn babies—about 500 in the last month from that clinic alone—to Walton hospital in Liverpool, which in turn charges the national health service 50p per sack of human remains, which are then incinerated on the premises at Walton hospital.
I wish to quiz the Minister on the conscience clause, a matter to which, I understand, the hon. Member for Congleton will refer in due course. In a letter dated 13 November of this year, the district general manager of South Sefton (Merseyside) health authority, said:
The 'conscience' clause in the Abortion Act applies only to those staff who might be participating in treatment.
In other words, ancillary staff—porters and operators of furnaces and incinerators—have no protection whatever in this matter. When does the Minister intend to do something about the recommendations of the Select

Committee on Health—the Chairman of which, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I am glad to see in his place—which recommended last year that the conscience clause should be extended to cover ancillary workers?
When will the recommendations of the Polkinghorne committee be implemented'? That committee reported to the Department during consideration of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Polkinghorne said:
A foetus is entitled to respect, according it a status broadly comparable with that of a living person.
Who can honestly believe that the grinding and pulping of the unborn child and the discharge of its remains into the public sewers like human excrement constitutes dignity or respect?
In many countries—for example, Sweden, Italy and the United States—there is legislation requiring the unborn to be treated with respect. Fifteen states in America require that the unborn who are aborted or miscarried shall be buried or cremated and not tossed into an incinerator with hospital waste, which is precisely what is happening at Walton hospital. I hope that the Minister will address that point too when he replies. There are in the United States 90-day jail sentences and $700 fines for people found breaking that law.
What are the health implications for the communities living in and around the locations where incinerators are located'? That is another matter that must be addressed by the Department, for I became interested in the issue in the first place because of complaints from people living in neighbourhoods near clinics which were using what the chief environmental health officer described as "unsatisfactory incineration methods".
In the last 24 hours, I have heard from Merseyside hospital workers and NUPE officials that they have been asked to handle and incinerate the remains of babies who have been perfectly formed. They question why they should be forced to do other people's dirty work.
All life is precious. If, on these supreme human rights questions, this Parliament does not insist on the dignity and respect to which the unborn are entitled, what right will we have to be taken seriously on any other occasion when we demand that human rights must be respected?

Sir Bernard Braine: The House is deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising a matter that so far has been dealt with behind closed doors. Now that it is out in the open, it will truly shock the nation. There can be no doubt that, without the hon. Gentleman's initiative, the House would never have heard of the manner in which aborted babies were being disposed of at the Parkfield road clinic in Merseyside, run by the Pregnancy Advisory Service, which on many occasion I have heard spokesmen of the Department of Health referring to as a charity.
The Minister for Health is not here to answer the hon. Gentleman's grave charge. No doubt the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will confirm that she changed the guidelines earlier this year. Henceforward, incineration in abortion clinics would be upgraded, since those in use previously were no longer considered adequate for their grisly task. Inquiries revealed that the Merseyside nursing home had followed instructions and has discarded its


incinerator. Instead of upgrading the equipment, it was replaced with a macerator which minced to pieces the aborted babies and sluiced them down the local sewer.
Can the Parliamentary Under-Secretary possibly imagine the horror of those in Liverpool when they discovered what was being done with the connivance of my hon. Friend's Department? I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary realises that that practice offends against every conceivable standard of human decency. I feel bound to ask him, therefore, a number of questions.
First, what follow-up inquiries were made by the Department of Health to ensure that the Minister's instruction about incineration had been carried out? We know that no inquiries were made in Merseyside, but I want to know what was done in every other health authority in the country. We are entitled to know.
Secondly, what was the reason for ordering abortion clinic incinerators to be upgraded? Was it anything to do with the fact that the existing incinerators might no longer be adequate for the disposal of late aborted babies, where a recognisable little human would be thrust into the flames? What was the reason for the so-called upgrading? Let us be told.
Thirdly, it is bad enough that daily we destroy the lives of 600 unborn babies, but now, by treating their remains like effluent or sending them up in smoke, we show the depravity and the degradation that are the hallmarks of the abortion industry.
It appears that the Merseyside clinic had not invested in an upgraded incinerator, but had instead hired the services of an industrial waste disposal company, which collects the aborted babies and takes them to be incinerated at Walton hospital—which, ironically, does not carry out abortions. I am told that, for that service, the company charges the hospital 50p for each bag to be incinerated. Is that an improvement on macerators? Is this the pattern elsewhere in the country? This House wants to know. We need to know what is going on.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill reminded us that the Polkinghorne committee said that the remains of the unborn were entitled to the same treatment as human cadavers and were to be treated with respect and dignity. The Polkinghorne committee also said that mothers should be asked in advance how they wanted their babies to be treated. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say whether the mother will in future be asked that question, and whether proper burial arrangements will be made in future, as they are in the United States. I hope too that he will say whether an independent watchdog will be established, and what action will be taken to prosecute those who have been responsible for these degrading practices.
This is a shameful story, and nothing but a full inquiry and a truthful report to the House will suffice. If I were the Under-Secretary—I once held that office—I would resign.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for allowing me to contribute briefly to this evening's debate. As chairman of the all-party Pro-Life group, I can say that the subject is of great concern to many right hon. and hon. Members.
In 1989 deep concern was also generated by the news that the brain cells of aborted babies were being used in controversial new treatments for Parkinson's disease. As a result, the Secretary of State for Health commissioned the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, Dean of Trinity hall, Cambridge, to chair a committee to consider the ethical questions that that raised.
Dr. Polkinghorne and his committee studied the matter and made several recommendations which, although lacking the force of law, nevertheless bear consideration now. The committee observed:
Central to our understanding is the acceptance of a special status for the living human fetus at every stage of its development". 
The committee went on to say that respect for the living foetus carries over in
a modified fashion to the dead fetus, in a way analogous to the respect we afford to a human cadaver on the basis of its having been the body of a human person.
It is hard to envisage a mother consenting to the remains of her unborn child being ground to pieces and flushed into the public sewer. Such a method of disposal of foetal remains flies directly in the face of the spirit of respect for the dead foetus which the Polkinghorne report espoused. It is gruesome in the extreme.
My feelings of deep concern are aroused both for the mother, who may subsequently realise the horror of what was done with the remains of her child and suffer unspeakable anguish as a result, and for the ancillary workers who face the task of carrying out the procedure. The Government have refused to bring ancillary workers within the scope of the protection afforded by the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967, despite the recommendation of the Social Services Committee which in its 10th report of the 1989–90 Session recommended:
The Department of Health considers extending the provisions of section 4 of the 1967 Act to cover some Ancillary staff".

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: My hon. Friend will be aware that the complaint which led the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to raise the matter was made by NUPE hospital workers who do not want to be placed in such a position. Perhaps we should be doing something for them.

Mrs. Winterton: That is precisely why the committee recommended that those workers should be included under the conscience clause. Most ordinary people are revolted by what those workers have to do. A woman's right to choose is lauded throughout the land, but if people realised that others had to clear up the remains of the dead babies they would think more clearly about it at the beginning.
The Department of Health is responsible for protecting ancillary workers against pressure to be involved in procedures to which they conscientiously object. It was unacceptable and cowardly of the Minister to respond to the Select Committee's recommendation by hiding behind a facade and arguing that matters relating to abortion should be left to private Member's legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Liverpool,


Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising this subject, not only this evening but in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, giving her the opportunity to deal with the maceration aspects. Her action clearly has the support of the three hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and reflects the view that would be held by any right-thinking person approaching the problem.
As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill rightly said, the issue before the House is not the main issue of the law governing the availability of abortions, but the practical consequences of the decisions that the House has taken over the years on the formulation of abortion law. The practical consequences are as distasteful to anyone considering the implications of the subject under discussion as the subject of abortion itself.
We must deal with the relatively narrow issue of how to deal with the unavoidably distasteful consequences of abortion laws, to which all hon. Members who have spoken are vehemently and passionately opposed. The correspondence of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill provided the Minister of State with an opportunity to change the public standards enforced on those responsible for carrying out the distasteful task of disposing of foetal remains.
The hon. Gentleman asked why a small minority of water authorities had allowed the maceration process to continue over a period of years. I am advised that no narrowly defined health hazard arises from the process. However, that in no way invalidates the proposition that an issue of public taste and standards arises from that method of disposal, and it was the acceptance of that which led my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to intervene in the way she did.
My hon. Friend's intervention was motivated and governed by precisely the approach adopted by the Polkinghorne committee—that the disposal of foetal remains should be governed by the principle that foetal remains had before abortion the potential for developing into fully fledged human life and are entitled to the respect that any common-sense approach—not to mention any vaguely religious approach—to the subject must require public authorities to observe.
As a consequence of the correspondence with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health imposed a new public standard on the disposal of foetal remains—precisely the approach that has been pressed upon me by the hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, that that disposal should be informed by the approach adopted by the Polkinghorne report. That is not in dispute.
I was asked how the changed public standard that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health introduced would be enforced. The answer is twofold. First, as it concerns NHS institutions, it is enforced by guidelines issued by the NHS Management Executive, a copy of which I have before me, which is headed:
Action. As soon as possible and no later than 1 January 1992, NHS authorities and trusts must ensure that"—
then there are three propositions, first
account is taken of any personal wishes which have been expressed about the disposal of the foetus".
That answers the point put to me about the concern of the mother.

Mr. Alton: It does not entirely answer that point. It says that if wishes are expressed by the mother they will be

taken into account. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) asked whether the mother would be asked.

Mr. Dorrell: I would not give the assurance that in every case the mother will be asked. We should remember that mothers who go for an abortion do not take the same interest in the subject as perhaps the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member might. None the less, where a personal view is expressed the guidance is clear—that the NHS has an obligation to take that into account.
Secondly, the guidance says that, subject to the views expressed by the mother about the disposal of the foetus, all foetuses and foetal tissue from the termination of a pregnancy must be incinerated. Thirdly, prior to incineration, all foetuses and foetal tissue must be stored in a secure and opaque container in a safe place.
The enforcement mechanism is the management guidance issued by the Management Executive for NHS hospitals.

Mr. Alton: What about the issue of separation and the conscience clause for hospital workers? Surely the remains of unborn children should be removed from the garbage that is in the incinerator or which may be put into the incinerator at the same time. Surely the Minister would accept that.

Mr. Dorrell: I am coming to the point about the conscience clause, but I wish first to deal with enforcement in relation to the private sector institutions, which is obviously a large part of the issue raised by the question. As to that, a letter was addressed to all approved places and registered bureaux under the abortion law. I will not read it to the House in its entirety, because if I do I shall be unable to cover the other points. However, the key paragraph states categorically:
Compliance with this letter is a requirement for continued approval under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967.
Both as regards NHS management guidance and the licensing system for approved places for abortions, action has been taken to ensure that the raised public standards that my hon. Friend the Minister of State introduced will be observed and met.
As to the conscience clause, it was correctly stated that the Select Committee pointed out that the existing state of the law provides a conscience clause for medical staff but not for non-medical staff in regard to the disposal of foetal remains. The Government's response has already been published, and states clearly that the Government consider that the changes in primary legislation on that subject should be carried forward by private Members' legislation—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.

Mr. Dorrell: —just as the original conscience clause was put on the statute book by private Members' legislation.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is cowardly.

Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend may regard that as cowardly, but the House has a long tradition of approaching such issues on the basis of private Members' legislation. Effective, even half-sensitive management in the health service should ensure that people who have a conscience clause as a management action are not required


to undertake the disposal of foetal remains or to be involved in the necessary consequences of the abortion decision taken by the House.
Proposals to change statute law—primary legislation —on the conditions surrounding abortion is something that the House has always dealt with by private Members' legislation. That cannot come as a surprise to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because it was clearly stated in the Government's response to that Select Committee.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill to allow the conscience clause for ancillary workers, but it was killed by the Government.

Mr. Winterton: What about that?

Mr. Dorrell: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) secured time for such a Bill in a private Members' ballot, I am surprised to hear that the Government took action to kill it. If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend introduced a ten-minute Bill at the end of a Session, he will know that other considerations will have informed decisions taken at that time.
If any right hon. or hon. Member draws a place in a ballot for private Members' Bills in seeking to introduce

legislation to provide a conscience clause for ancillary staff in the health service of the kind that we are debating, that matter would be dealt with by a free vote on which the Government would not take a view.

Mr. Winterton: Who is pulling the wool?

Mr. Dorrell: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not sure. I am stating clearly that the Government would not seek to intervene in a decision taken by the House on a proposal of the kind just suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn.

Sir Bernard Braine: I mentioned American law on the subject. Why do the Government not have the courage to follow the example set by our American cousins—or, for that matter, by any civilised country?

Mr. Dorrell: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn that, as a private Member, I would certainly support a measure of the kind that he proposed. As a Government Minister, we have a long tradition in this country—separate from the tradition in the United States, that matters relating to abortion are handled by private Members' legislation——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.